I think they press have to find evidence to press charges first. Let's hope it at least gets a chance to go to trial.
And sometimes I think Babe's been indulging in too much post-apocalyptic media!
Only sometimes?
alright, I need to re-state the case. This is court-tight legal argument now:
People have an innate, inherent right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. And the right to defend their life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
When thugs come around with guns and present a reasonable threat to these things, you have the right to defend with proportionate force necessary to defend these rights.
If the apparent threat to these rights are folks with badges and guns, we as a general citizenry must demand that our legal and/or justice system present that credible, proportional force. If cops shoot people and kill them, in ways we reasonably could define as beyond the defined powers of the police, they are not cops, but criminals wearing badges. The legal system should punish offenders like that proportionately to the threat they present to the general law and order of society.
Whatever technology we give to our police, we must define responsible use and the limits of power attending that use, and prosecute offenders proportionately to the threat they are to our general right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
A police force that is trained to treat the public as a threat, as an adversary, is inherently disqualified from being given any leeway as public defenders. If the cops lose that accountability, and that sense of being defenders of our rights, we need to throw the bums out of office who are responsible for them, and get new cops who understand who they work for.
clear enough, Moe?
police defending my property rights, property being in Blackstone's opinion equivalent to life, can reasonably demand people trying to leave the vicinity to stop, be searched, or to answer some relevant questions. If they ask irrelevant questions they're doing what's called unlawful detainer. If they have no reason to think you were at the scene of the crime, or could reasonably conclude you are not a suspect, it's unlawful detainer. We have civil law attorneys who make a living pressing charges like this. . . . pay one a visit, it's your civic duty to make sure the police keep the law in mind.
If a cop shouts "Stop", if there's any question who he's shouting at, just stop. If you run, that is just cause to suspect you. You should stop and comply with reasonable requests and help the officer to quickly sort through relevant concerns and move on to more relevant concerns. When he's figured that out, say "Thank You, Officer."
But boy, these are slow times in JF forum. I haven't ever actually seen any post-apocalyptic media. Not even anything pretending to be post-apocalyptic. I haven't even played any of those killer video games, or even watched. So whatever I say, consider it to be based on events and technologies available in this age. Cars that can drive themselves because they have sensors, cameras, and computers programmed to make thousands of computations a second. We have GPS technology that is unequivocal at mere inches from 22000 miles up in the sky. Cops have onboard computers that can run any plate in the country and tell them more about the registrant of that vehicle than his mother knows. In California there are places with traffic cams, clicking off speeding tickets and stop sign/red light violations. We have facial recognition programs with millions of people's pics. . . . from drivers' licenses. . . . from facebook. . . .in the data base. The grocery store cam can announce your name as you walk in, like you're royalty entering a prestigious gathering or something, and can suggest several items you regularly purchase that are on sale today. . . .
