Dylan Busted!

[JerryBob]

I rarely lock my doors. Only when I am gone for more than 24 hours.

And, I bet for at least the next year and maybe a lifetime.....People who do lock their doors really don't need to. I don't care where you live.

Has your dog ever woke you at night due to someone rattleing your locked door.

Doubt it.

Paranoia drives security.

FREEDOM.....Richie Haven sings......FREEDOM>!!!!

[knockwood]

You're giving up some freedom for some security by locking your doors. I know it may seem like a stretch, but I see a very stark parallel. You have to become a prisoner, of sorts, in your own home

 

 

A stretch??? Not at all! I'm pretty sure Franklin was talking about my apartment and not the relationship between the citizenry and the government, so good point. I mean, is there a difference between me locking my door by choice and a police officer demanding my identification because I choose to take a walk? Of course not.

 

Plus, when I lock my door I give up the freedom to not have to flick my wrist a couple times to go outside, which is really a pain in the ass. I need that valuable wrist energy for guitar playing and forum posting. I've been looking all over teh interwebz for some kind of mechanical device that will relieve me of this arduous burden by automatically unlocking my door as I approach, but no luck so far - not anything I can afford, anyway. Maybe someday I'll get a butler, who I guess would be more or less like my jailer...

[rhancox]

Actually I don't see the irony at all. Comparing locking my doors to being held or questioned without cause is a stretch at best. Would I like to live in a world where I didn't have to lock my doors? Of course I would. Would I be willing to allow cops to stop me, search me and question me without a warrant to make the world a reality. No I wouldn't.

 

 

You missed more than your exit on this one.

 

You called out the point made by Frets99 about someone in the Bronx giving up a little freedom for the security of walking to the store safely. No mention was made of being stopped by cops for no reason.

 

I agree with you about being stopped for no reason, but I was pointing out how you applied Ben Franklin's quote to the person in the Bronx, yet you yourself have to lock your doors. The point being, you've had to give up something to gain some security.

 

You seemed to criticize it then go on to say how you do it too.

[knockwood]

Yet, our govt, both liberal and conservative alike, have created things like the Patriot Act and sobriety checkpoints.

 

 

Um... exactly.

[rhancox]

A stretch??? Not at all! I'm pretty sure Franklin was talking about my apartment and not the relationship between the citizenry and the government, so good point. I mean, is there a difference between me locking my door by choice and a police officer demanding my identification because I choose to take a walk? Of course not. Plus, when I lock my door I give up the freedom to not have to flick my wrist a couple times to go outside, which is really a pain in the ass. I need that valuable wrist energy for guitar playing and forum posting. I've been looking all over teh interwebz for some kind of mechanical device that will relieve me of this arduous burden by automatically unlocking my door as I approach, but no luck so far - not anything I can afford, anyway. Maybe someday I'll get a butler, who I guess would be more or less like my jailer...

 

 

My point wasn't so much to say that having to lock your door was exactly like allowing the police to detain us for no reason.

 

The irony I was pointing out was we lock our doors because of the way the world is today. The cops behave they way they do because of the way the world is today. It's sad. I'm not a big fan of it either, but it's a reality.

 

You lock your door because you don't trust people. Cops stop some people because they don't trust them. Why don't you trust some people? Because you probably have experience of getting robbed at some point, or at least know of people who have. Why don't cops trust some people? Because they've got a lot of experience of seeing people do seemingly normal things but they're up to no good.

 

Not to stray too far here, but take the 9/11 attackers. They didn't do anything wrong all the way to the point of taking over those planes. Even carrying a box cutter was considered acceptable.

 

I'm not advocating a police state or anything close to it. But I understand the reactions to the world we live in. I'm sure there are better ways to remain free and still be secure, but human nature is such to take the path of least resistance.

[missedmyexit]

You missed more than your exit on this one. You called out the point made by Frets99 about someone in the Bronx giving up a little freedom for the security of walking to the store safely. No mention was made of being stopped by cops for no reason. I agree with you about being stopped for no reason, but I was pointing out how you applied Ben Franklin's quote to the person in the Bronx, yet you yourself have to lock your doors. The point being, you've had to give up something to gain some security. You seemed to criticize it then go on to say how you do it too.

 

 

 

Giving up SOMETHING for security is not what the quote is referring to he was specifically talking about civil liberties. I don't see any civil liberty being given up when locking my doors. Would we all be safer if the police was allowed to do random searches of people's homes prison style looking for illegal guns? Maybe we would but we would be giving up those liberties Ben was talking about.

[missedmyexit]

My point wasn't so much to say that having to lock your door was exactly like allowing the police to detain us for no reason. The irony I was pointing out was we lock our doors because of the way the world is today. The cops behave they way they do because of the way the world is today. It's sad. I'm not a big fan of it either, but it's a reality. You lock your door because you don't trust people. Cops stop some people because they don't trust them. Why don't you trust some people? Because you probably have experience of getting robbed at some point, or at least know of people who have. Why don't cops trust some people? Because they've got a lot of experience of seeing people do seemingly normal things but they're up to no good. Not to stray too far here, but take the 9/11 attackers. They didn't do anything wrong all the way to the point of taking over those planes. Even carrying a box cutter was considered acceptable. I'm not advocating a police state or anything close to it. But I understand the reactions to the world we live in. I'm sure there are better ways to remain free and still be secure, but human nature is such to take the path of least resistance.

 

 

It's about choice, I can lock my doors and it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Cops detaining and questioning people without cause does.

[rhancox]

Giving up SOMETHING for security is not what the quote is referring to he was specifically talking about civil liberties. I don't see any civil liberty being given up when locking my doors. Would we all be safer if the police was allowed to do random searches of people's homes prison style looking for illegal guns? Maybe we would but we would be giving up those liberties Ben was talking about.

 

 

I understand your point. I also agree with you, on the civil liberties part.

 

I have to disagree on what the quote "specifically" said. It just said "liberties". That's a much broader term than "civil liberties". Liberty is another word for freedom. Because of the world we live in, reason dictates that we are not free to leave our doors unlocked.

 

It's a stretch, I know. I just found your quoting of Franklin juxtaposed to your next post about locking your doors.

[knockwood]

 

It's about choice, I can lock my doors and it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Cops detaining and questioning people without cause does.

 

 

This.

 

Me locking my door because I don't trust the gen pop is a bit different from me deciding that I have a right to extend that mistrust to the street and start detaining people. This whole angle is nonsensical.

[missedmyexit]

I understand your point. I also agree with you, on the civil liberties part. I have to disagree on what the quote "specifically" said. It just said "liberties". That's a much broader term than "civil liberties". Liberty is another word for freedom. Because of the world we live in, reason dictates that we are not free to leave our doors unlocked. It's a stretch, I know. I just found your quoting of Franklin juxtaposed to your next post about locking your doors.

 

 

I still don't understand the connection. What freedom am I giving up by locking my doors? You can argue that Arrow is not using his Liberty to lock his doors just as easily. I am exercising my LIBERTY to lock the my doors.

[rhancox]

It's about choice, I can lock my doors and it doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights. Cops detaining and questioning people without cause does.

 

 

Totally agree.

 

Was the Patriot Act or sobriety checkpoints necessary or a choice?

 

It's all relative. On a personal level, you make the choice to do some things to feel more secure. That has no affect on other people. We got attacked and we have a drunk driving problem. If a choice had to be made to do something about it, it was going to affect people. How could it not? Were they the right choices? That's surely open for more debate.

 

I will restate: my point was not to equate locking one's door to giving up civil liberties. They are reactions to the world we live in. Good or bad, and on whatever level, I see those reactions as being addressed by Franklin's quote.

[missedmyexit]

Totally agree. Was the Patriot Act or sobriety checkpoints necessary or a choice? It's all relative. On a personal level, you make the choice to do some things to feel more secure. That has no affect on other people. We got attacked and we have a drunk driving problem. If a choice had to be made to do something about it, it was going to affect people. How could it not? Were they the right choices? That's surely open for more debate. I will restate: my point was not to equate locking one's door to giving up civil liberties. They are reactions to the world we live in. Good or bad, and on whatever level, I see those reactions as being addressed by Franklin's quote.

 

 

 

To answer your question the Patriot Act is a fine example of Ben Franklin's quote. We have up ALOT of liberties for the illusion of security. You want to talk about Irony look at the name of the Act and then read the contents. That's irony at it's best.

 

Sobriety checkpoints is something different since operating is not a right. There are better examples, for instance we don't have the right to carry a bazooka down main street but in all seriousness is that a LIBERTY you are going to miss?

[knockwood]

I have to disagree on what the quote "specifically" said. It just said "liberties". That's a much broader term than "civil liberties". Liberty is another word for freedom. Because of the world we live in, reason dictates that we are not free to leave our doors unlocked..

 

 

If you're familiar with the context in which Franklin's quote was penned, he was specifically addressing civil liberties. Connecting the locking of one's door to the detainment of citizens by authorities was a stretch; attempting to alter Franklin's meaning is kind of a sharp turn into Wackyville.

 

Nothing dictates that doors should be locked but individual choice, otherwise known as freedom. There is no force or law requiring me to lock my door. I make the choice to do so freely, thus doing so cannot be compared to imprisonment - I can reverse my choice at will. I also know lots of people who inhabit the same world I do, but choose not to lock up.

 

This really is not a logical line of argument. You yourself pointed out that you were stretching. Trust your gut there.

[rhancox]

Ok, uncle.

But let me try to draw a parallel between locking your doors and what happened to Bob Dylan.

Do you feel you have to lock your doors? Forget the liberty aspect, I'm talking about why you lock your doors. Doesn't it piss you off that you have to? Yeah, we do it so much that we don't think about it, but think about it. Why should be have to? Because of the world we live in today.

Why did the cops stop Dylan? Well, someone called the police to report some suspicious activity. They practically had to. Now, why did those people feel it necessary to report this suspicious character? Because of the world we live in. Doesn't it piss you off that they felt they had to? Of course.

Cause is a pretty broad term, and can be very subjective. Cops do what they do based on cause. What they see as a reason. Is it abused, sure. But that's because it's so broad.

A hooker stands on a street corner in a tight, bright red, mini-skirt. Do you know what she's doing? Of course you do. Is it right to stop her because you know? Wouldn't that be cause? But she wasn't doing anything. Just standing there. But you know what she's up to. Would it be illegal to stop her? She's not doing anything except standing there.

A cop would stop her because he has the experience to know what will happen if she's allowed to continue to stand there.

You lock your door because you know what could happen if you don't.

[OldGuitarPlayer]

Several years back when I was married a local policeman knocked at my my front door around 10pm one Saturday night. When I answered the door the policeman asked me if I "owned a 1988 Mazda 323"? Now..earlier that evening my 17 year old stepson had taken my car to go to a surprise birthday party for a friend who happened to live in a fairly affluent neighborood. After I confirmed with the cop that I did indeed own a 1988 Mazda 323 he than asks me if I "know where it is". At this point I am very upset and afraid that my stepson had been in accident and was either seriously hurt or even possibly dead. I explained to the cop that yes..I do indeed know where my car is and who has it. He then tells me.."Ohh..ok it's just that we had a call from a concerned citizen (in the affluent neighborhood) about 3 young men in a Mazda 323 that had turned around into his driveway to change directions, park on the street and leave the vehicle". I explained to the cop that one of those young men in my car was my stepson and that he and his 2 friends where simply parking on the street to attend a birthday party in that neighborhood. I than proceeded to freak on the cop and explain to him that he basically scared the {censored} out of me (thinking my stepson was dead) and then asked him if it was a criminal offense for 3 youths to park on a street in a rich neighborhood? He apologized profusely.

This would not have happened if stepson had attended a birthday party in the "projects"...

[missedmyexit]

Ok, uncle. Why did the cops stop Dylan? Well, someone called the police to report some suspicious activity. They practically had to. Now, why did those people feel it necessary to report this suspicious character? Because of the world we live in. Doesn't it piss you off that they felt they had to? Of course. Cause is a pretty broad term, and can be very subjective. Cops do what they do based on cause. What they see as a reason. Is it abused, sure. But that's because it's so broad. A hooker stands on a street corner in a tight, bright red, mini-skirt. Do you know what she's doing? Of course you do. Is it right to stop her because you know? Wouldn't that be cause? But she wasn't doing anything. Just standing there. But you know what she's up to. Would it be illegal to stop her? She's not doing anything except standing there. A cop would stop her because he has the experience to know what will happen if she's allowed to continue to stand there. You lock your door because you know what could happen if you don't.

 

 

Reporting a suspicious character and having the police question Dylan in this instance is fine. No liberties harmed. The Police can ask him questions and Dylan can choose to answer them or tell the to go pound sand. What the police can not do is hold him without reason. They can ASK for ID, hell they can ask him for free tickets to tonights show but he doesn't have to provide it.

 

Again the world we live in is not ideal, and we could probably make it safer by doing things like the Patriot Act which do infringe on civil liberties. Hell if we decide to go to a guilty until proven innocent format a lot of the criminals would end up in jail and the streets would be safer. But how many innocent people would be searched and imprisoned as well? This country made a decision a long time ago to error on the side of liberty and freedom over safety and I still believe that decision to be the right one.

 

It would be illegal to hold her but the police can question who ever they want. The Hooker could tell them to go to hell and there really isn't much they can do about it until they catch her in the act of Prostitution.

[missedmyexit]

Several years back when I was married a local policeman knocked at my my front door around 10pm one Saturday night. When I answered the door the policeman asked me if I "owned a 1988 Mazda 323"? Now..earlier that evening my 17 year old stepson had taken my car to go to a surprise birthday party for a friend who happened to live in a fairly affluent neighborood. After I confirmed with the cop that I did indeed own a 1988 Mazda 323 he than asks me if I "know where it is". At this point I am very upset and afraid that my stepson had been in accident and was either seriously hurt or even possibly dead. I explained to the cop that yes..I do indeed know where my car is and who has it. He then tells me.."Ohh..ok it's just that we had a call from a concerned citizen (in the affluent neighborhood) about 3 young men in a Mazda 323 that had turned around into his driveway to change directions, park on the street and leave the vehicle". I explained to the cop that one of those young men in my car was my stepson and that he and his 2 friends where simply parking on the street to attend a birthday party in that neighborhood. I than proceeded to freak on the cop and explain to him that he basically scared the {censored} out of me (thinking my stepson was dead) and then asked him if it was a criminal offense for 3 youths to park on a street in a rich neighborhood? He apologized profusely. This would not have happened if stepson had attended a birthday party in the "projects"...

Again asking questions about things that are out of place isn't illegal and doesn't infringe on your rights. The cops need to follow up on suspicious activity and it's your choice to decide if answering their questions violates any of your rights. If the cop said he was going to track the car down and arrest the people that's a different story.

[totamus]

We have no freedoms left. They have been regulated away. Not by "Black Booted" police, but by our lawmakers and their bureaucratic legions who insist on regulating everything from how much water a toilet tank can hold to what type of dwelling we can build on our own property.

 

Freedom is a myth. Criminal enterprise is a reality. Crying over the loss of a freedom you never had because the police responds to a citizens concern is laughable. Dylan didn't complain, and I suspect he is good at making political statements without fear.

[rhancox]

Reporting a suspicious character and having the police question Dylan in this instance is fine. No liberties harmed. The Police can ask him questions and Dylan can choose to answer them or tell the to go pound sand. What the police can not do is hold him without reason. They can ASK for ID, hell they can ask him for free tickets to tonights show but he doesn't have to provide it. Again the world we live in is not ideal, and we could probably make it safer by doing things like the Patriot Act which do infringe on civil liberties. Hell if we decide to go to a guilty until proven innocent format a lot of the criminals would end up in jail and the streets would be safer. But how many innocent people would be searched and imprisoned as well? This country made a decision a long time ago to error on the side of liberty and freedom over safety and I still believe that decision to be the right one. It would be illegal to hold her but the police can question who ever they want. The Hooker could tell them to go to hell and there really isn't much they can do about it until they catch her in the act of Prostitution.

I totally agree with everything you said.

I'll admit that my Franklin quote argument was not exactly cut and dry. But I believe you and I are definitely on the same page otherwise.

One thing I do have to say on the sobriety checkpoint deal. You made an excellent point about operating a motor vehicle being a privilege. OTOH, do you think the authorities have the right to stop you in your car for any reason? The checkpoints are designed to catch a certain type of offender, but why stop there? Most of the people stopped aren't doing anything wrong either, but the majority believe that it's for a good cause. Even the Supreme Court said so.

Now, what was it that Franklin said? Gosh, I can't remember it exactly....

[rjoxyz]

Again asking questions about things that are out of place isn't illegal and doesn't infringe on your rights. The cops need to follow up on suspicious activity and it's your choice to decide if answering their questions violates any of your rights. If the cop said he was going to track the car down and arrest the people that's a different story.

 

 

Fair viewpoint in theory. Problem is, when you tell the officer you are not going to answer his questions or otherwise cooperate, you will likely have a drug dog sniffing your crotch about 10 minutes later.

 

Though evidence found in an illegal search may be suppressed at trial, that doesn't help much if no criminal charges are filed after the shakedown. Filing suit for a Section 1983 civil rights violation is not really feasible unless they beat the crap out of you on video or hold you in jail for a few days. Damages just don't warrant the expense in most cases.

 

So, what you are left with is cops detaining, harassing and embarassing you in public, with little legal meaninful legal remedy. I see it a lot.

 

Don't get me wrong. We have to balance civil liberty with safety in this new world. The "good old days" ended in September 2001. However, this certainly doesn't justify the subject situation, or ones like it, where there is no reasonable belief a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

 

I have tremendous respect and empathy for law enforcement officers. Some of them are not as deserving as most. The reality is that police officers don't like being told "No". That is understandable. Moreover, they are not likely to back away and apologize for violating the Bill of Rights when you point out the error of there ways on an urban sidewalk. Assert your rights at your own risk.

[rhancox]

bureaucratic legions who insist on regulating... what type of dwelling we can build on our own property.

 

 

Does this include the act of paying someone to tell us what color we can paint our house. HOA.

[missedmyexit]

Fair viewpoint in theory. Problem is, when you tell the officer you are not going to answer his questions or otherwise cooperate, you will likely have a drug dog sniffing your crotch about 10 minutes later. Though evidence found in an illegal search may be suppressed at trial, that doesn't help much if no criminal charges are filed after the shakedown. Filing suit for a Section 1983 civil rights violation is not really feasible unless they beat the crap out of you on video or hold you in jail for a few days. Damages just don't warrant the expense in most cases. So, what you are left with is cops detaining, harassing and embarassing you in public, with little legal meaninful legal remedy. I see it a lot. I have tremendous respect and empathy for law enforcement officers. Some of them are not as deserving as most. The reality is that police officers don't like being told "No". That is understandable. Moreover, they are not likely to back away and apologize for violating the Bill of Rights when you point out the error of there ways on an urban sidewalk. Assert your rights at your own risk.

 

 

This is all true but it is the result of people going the way of Dylan and meekly accepting the demand. If more people said "No" it wouldn't be suspect when you do.

 

 

Don't get me wrong. We have to balance civil liberty with safety in this new world. The "good old days" ended in September 2001. However, this certainly doesn't justify the subject situation, or ones like it, where there is no reasonable belief a crime has been, or is about to be committed.

 

 

This didn't start with 9/11, Earp revoked the right to carry firearms in city limits over 100 years ago because too many people were getting shot on the street in Dodge City. I do however think the Patriot Act was a huge over-reaction as far as how much Privacy and liberties it took away. There are many things in there that are likely illegal when held up against the bill of rights and wouldn't stand up in court.

[missedmyexit]

I totally agree with everything you said. I'll admit that my Franklin quote argument was not exactly cut and dry. But I believe you and I are definitely on the same page otherwise. One thing I do have to say on the sobriety checkpoint deal. You made an excellent point about operating a motor vehicle being a privilege. OTOH, do you think the authorities have the right to stop you in your car for any reason? The checkpoints are designed to catch a certain type of offender, but why stop there? Most of the people stopped aren't doing anything wrong either, but the majority believe that it's for a good cause. Even the Supreme Court said so. Now, what was it that Franklin said? Gosh, I can't remember it exactly....

Road blocks change from state to state in Mass they have to announce Road Blocks for them to be legal and can not pursue someone for avoiding said road blocks which make them pretty much useless. That said if you go through a road block you can refuse the sobriety tests.

[rhancox]

Road blocks change from state to state in Mass they have to announce Road Blocks for them to be legal and can not pursue someone for avoiding said road blocks which make them pretty much useless. That said if you go through a road block you can refuse the sobriety tests.

 

 

I remember in CA, where I'm from originally, they changed it to where they had to be announced. Location and time. I don't recall anything about the pursuit deal. And I'm not sure what TX does. They don't do too many, if any, here in S.A., that I can recall.

 

The fact remains though, the concept of the road blocks is upheld on the grounds that drunk driving is a danger to society and being stopped briefly is a small price to pay to be safe.

[Ohioarrow]

 

We have no freedoms left. They have been regulated away. Not by "Black Booted" police, but by our lawmakers and their bureaucratic legions who insist on regulating everything from how much water a toilet tank can hold to what type of dwelling we can build on our own property.

 

 

You left out one, a criminal code that is open to interpretation by over zealous prosecutors with political under-currents even when a given law was created for a purpose that is unrelated to it's use. But since said laws are created by the above mentioned 'lawmakers and their bureaucratic legions' I should digress.

 

Examples are evident through the system but a case in point is that when presented with the argument that elements of the Patriot Act were being used for purposes normally covered under the 4th amendment (among others), then AG Anthony Gonzales replied that he was not going to apologize for using those articles for other non-terror prosecutions. (paraphrased) When the debate began that demanded specific exclusions to the use of the Patriot Act articles in non-terror cases, the office of the AG flat refused to adjust their interpretation in the code. With that refusal they might just as well had admitted that the 9/11 terror was little more than an excuse to overcome the Bill of Rights.