For people who like Scalia and/or Thomas - Page 2

Kytro · 11-06-2006, 11:15 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

all street gangs are founded on this idea, can you name one that isn't?

this would prevent crime

How would it prevent crime. It would at best, move it.

kinggovernor · 11-06-2006, 11:47 PM

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Westlaw doesn't give out links unless you pay thousands of dollars

I decided to front you on that one

i prefer lexis myself haven't used westlaw that much

kinggovernor · 11-06-2006, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

How would it prevent crime. It would at best, move it.

police officer breaks up gang group, prevents them from selling drugs on that street or mugging people on that street.

if they don't want to move, they get moved into a holding cell. that will definetly put a damper on crime

Kytro · 11-07-2006, 01:13 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

police officer breaks up gang group, prevents them from selling drugs on that street or mugging people on that street.

if they don't want to move, they get moved into a holding cell. that will definetly put a damper on crime

Not really. It isn't like gang members are going to attempt those things with the police there anyway. If they comply, they simply move to another street for a while, and come back another day

Scrum · 11-07-2006, 01:36 AM

Jesus Thor....

allthatshitbyyou.jpg

WickedLou9 · 11-07-2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

all street gangs are founded on this idea, can you name one that isn't?

this would prevent crime

just because it may prevent crime does not make it right.
Turning this country into a military state where no one could do anything without governmenetal permission would prevent crime too. The prevention of crime, in and of itself, is not a justification for anything.

kinggovernor · 11-07-2006, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

just because it may prevent crime does not make it right.
Turning this country into a military state where no one could do anything without governmenetal permission would prevent crime too. The prevention of crime, in and of itself, is not a justification for anything.

I wouldn't call it a military state if a group of people publicly and openly define themselves as an organized criminal element and then the government tries to take action against that group to protect its citizens.

WickedLou9 · 11-07-2006, 09:59 AM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I wouldn't call it a military state if a group of people publicly and openly define themselves as an organized criminal element and then the government tries to take action against that group to protect its citizens.

That's not what I said. You said it would prevent crime so it's OK. I gave you can extreme example using your own justification.

kinggovernor · 11-07-2006, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

That's not what I said. You said it would prevent crime so it's OK. I gave you can extreme example using your own justification.

I was talking about reality

WickedLou9 · 11-07-2006, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

I was talking about reality

So in reality you have no problem with anything so long as it reduces crime?
It's ok to take someone who is standing around and charge them with a crime? the crime of standing around?

kinggovernor · 11-07-2006, 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

So in reality you have no problem with anything so long as it reduces crime?
It's ok to take someone who is standing around and charge them with a crime? the crime of standing around?

did I even come close to saying that?

I have no problems with gangs meetings being broken up in public

Kytro · 11-07-2006, 07:05 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

did I even come close to saying that?

I have no problems with gangs meetings being broken up in public

I have problems with it. Meeting isn't a crime. It does not matter to me who they people are or what the reputation is like.

Better in public where it can be monitored than private where it cannot.

Out of sight, out of mind isn't a positive

kinggovernor · 11-07-2006, 08:43 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

I have problems with it. Meeting isn't a crime. It does not matter to me who they people are or what the reputation is like.

Better in public where it can be monitored than private where it cannot.

Out of sight, out of mind isn't a positive

its obviously matters to members of that community that have to deal with the drug dealing and violence that occurs because the gang is meeting out in the open.

Kytro · 11-07-2006, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

its obviously matters to members of that community that have to deal with the drug dealing and violence that occurs because the gang is meeting out in the open.

It occurs because there is a demand for drugs, not because they meet in open.

The only thing meeting in open indicates is there is a problem. You can't treat the symptom and expect the cause to go away.

It's a pointless gesture and those that believe crime will hindered by the police telling people not to meet really are not looking at the whole picture.

kinggovernor · 11-07-2006, 11:00 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

It occurs because there is a demand for drugs, not because they meet in open.

The only thing meeting in open indicates is there is a problem. You can't treat the symptom and expect the cause to go away.

It's a pointless gesture and those that believe crime will hindered by the police telling people not to meet really are not looking at the whole picture.

i am dealing in reality here, if a police officer sees a gang meeting going on he should break it up. not that is going to solve the world's problem but it would solve an immediate one

Kytro · 11-07-2006, 11:07 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

i am dealing in reality here, if a police officer sees a gang meeting going on he should break it up. not that is going to solve the world's problem but it would solve an immediate one

Let's assume he has the power to do so, and he breaks up the meeting.

Will they:

a) Decide they can't sell drugs and break other laws or

b) Move to another area, and continue.

It's a feel good law, nothing more. Since the amount of good that can come from such a law is limited it is outweighed by people's liberty.

If I want to stand around with my friends, I should be able to do so. If I start harrasing people, then I shouldn't

kinggovernor · 11-07-2006, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Kytro

Let's assume he has the power to do so, and he breaks up the meeting.

Will they:

a) Decide they can't sell drugs and break other laws or

b) Move to another area, and continue.

It's a feel good law, nothing more. Since the amount of good that can come from such a law is limited it is outweighed by people's liberty.

If I want to stand around with my friends, I should be able to do so. If I start harrasing people, then I shouldn't

or maybe they will refuse to move, so they get picked up. and they have weapons/drugs on them and then they are off the streets

when they move down the block to sell drugs, the police will just have to keep tabs on them.

it is a complete solution, no, but is a decent tool for LE

Kytro · 11-07-2006, 11:55 PM

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

or maybe they will refuse to move, so they get picked up. and they have weapons/drugs on them and then they are off the streets

A few times perhaps.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

when they move down the block to sell drugs, the police will just have to keep tabs on them.

Which is what they should be doing anyway, and it's easier if they are in a known location.

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

it is a complete solution, no, but is a decent tool for LE

Which is where is disagree. I think the only purpose of the tool is harassment rather than crime prevention.