OT - Report From The Convention

Marek Moskal wrote:
Herb Schaltegger wrote [30 Aug 2004]:

Given I saw them stopping a car on 34th on Thursday of last week and
demanding IDs, I'd say yes.

Cops everywhere are employing their newly-confirmed power to demand
identification without probable cause. Thanks, U.S. Supreme Court.
Nice to know you're not immune to the "War on Terror" hysteria . . . :-/

There is a lot of irony in the fact that US people used to laugh at
Eastern Europe people about that very thing...

Still, it's very positive to hear that the guy not only survived but was
also allowed to complete the task (although not as originally intended).

Yes, he was.

I only posted that little anecdote for its humor value, since it was
related to me by someone who was there, not to make any kind of "statement".

I'm sure anyone in the same position would have been stopped, not just
guys named Abdullah.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

Andrew Gray wrote:
OTOH, Penn Station is still open, I'm told. That one must be a real
headache...

Yes, it is and yes, it is. What's curious is the news reporting on this
aspect. On virtually every TV newscast (and there are 4 or 5 local ones
in the NYC area) the spin is that commuters are staying home because of
"fear of terrorism". Now that may be true of some small number of
people but by far the larger reason seems to be that people simply want
to avoid the nightmare of going in there this week, period. At least
that's what I've heard from the people I deal with who normally commute
to Manhattan every day. Can't say I blame them. You couldn't pay me
enough to take the train into Penn station this week, and fear of
terrorism has absolutely nothing to do with it.

--
bp
Proud Member of the Human O-Ring Society Since 2003

In article ,
Bruce Palmer wrote:

I only posted that little anecdote for its humor value, since it was
related to me by someone who was there, not to make any kind of "statement".

I'm sure anyone in the same position would have been stopped, not just
guys named Abdullah.

That's even more of a "statement" to me: now cops can stop anyone, at
any time, for no particular reason. It's not been very long since we
had comedians on TV doing their schtick on Nazis and we all used to
laugh about it. Remember the old, "Vere are your pa-perssss?!" bits?
Well, substitute cops all over America for the Nazi buffoons from the
skits and welcome to 21st Century America.

I don't much like that part of it, frankly. The Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution *used to* stand for the general proposition that cops
pretty much had to leave you alone, absent probable cause to believe
that both a crime had been committed and that you had committed it.
They needed both before they could stop you, detain you and demand
identification and perform any kind of search. I'm frankly astonished
that more people are not upset about the fact that this is no longer the
case.

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:31 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

I don't much like that part of it, frankly. The Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution *used to* stand for the general proposition that cops
pretty much had to leave you alone, absent probable cause to believe
that both a crime had been committed and that you had committed it.
They needed both before they could stop you, detain you and demand
identification and perform any kind of search. I'm frankly astonished
that more people are not upset about the fact that this is no longer the
case.

....Possibly because if you're not a minority, it usually doesn't
happen to you. And even if you *are* a minority, if you a) don't look
like someone from the Middle East, and/or b) aren't dressed up like a
ghetto thug gangbanger out on the prowl, odds are that you won't be
harassed either by a "surprise inspection".

OM

--

"No ******* ever won a war by dying for | http://www.io.com/~o_m
his country. He won it by making the other | Sergeant-At-Arms
poor dumb ******* die for his country." | Human O-Ring Society

- General George S. Patton, Jr

"OM" om@our_blessed_lady_mary_of_the_holy_NASA_researc h_facility.org wrote
in message ...
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 16:21:31 -0500, Herb Schaltegger
wrote:

I don't much like that part of it, frankly. The Fourth Amendment of the
Constitution *used to* stand for the general proposition that cops
pretty much had to leave you alone, absent probable cause to believe
that both a crime had been committed and that you had committed it.
They needed both before they could stop you, detain you and demand
identification and perform any kind of search. I'm frankly astonished
that more people are not upset about the fact that this is no longer the
case.

...Possibly because if you're not a minority, it usually doesn't
happen to you. And even if you *are* a minority, if you a) don't look
like someone from the Middle East, and/or b) aren't dressed up like a
ghetto thug gangbanger out on the prowl, odds are that you won't be
harassed either by a "surprise inspection".

My wife and I were stopped by cops in central New Jersey in 1996. They had
one of those roadblocks where they pull off everyone who looks suscpicious.
We were in our early 30s, driving a 3-year old Toyota Camry, and were fairly
well dressed. (I was driving my wife back from a job interview at CUNY). It
was about 11pm on a Friday. They asked us where we were going, how long I
had lived where I was, where I was from, and when my wife said that she was
getting back from a faculty interview at CUNY, the cop made a snide comment
about "so you think you're pretty smart, do you?". I have no idea why we in
particular were stopped, or why we were so heavily interviewed.

Ami Silberman wrote:



My wife and I were stopped by cops in central New Jersey in 1996. They had
one of those roadblocks where they pull off everyone who looks suscpicious.
We were in our early 30s, driving a 3-year old Toyota Camry, and were fairly
well dressed. (I was driving my wife back from a job interview at CUNY). It
was about 11pm on a Friday. They asked us where we were going, how long I
had lived where I was, where I was from, and when my wife said that she was
getting back from a faculty interview at CUNY, the cop made a snide comment
about "so you think you're pretty smart, do you?". I have no idea why we in
particular were stopped, or why we were so heavily interviewed.


It was that "Honk If Your Wife Is A Thespian" bumper sticker. ;-)

Pat

In article ,
Bruce Palmer wrote:

Ami Silberman wrote:
My wife and I were stopped by cops in central New Jersey in 1996. They had
one of those roadblocks where they pull off everyone who looks suscpicious.
We were in our early 30s, driving a 3-year old Toyota Camry, and were fairly
well dressed. (I was driving my wife back from a job interview at CUNY). It
was about 11pm on a Friday. They asked us where we were going, how long I
had lived where I was, where I was from, and when my wife said that she was
getting back from a faculty interview at CUNY, the cop made a snide comment
about "so you think you're pretty smart, do you?". I have no idea why we in
particular were stopped, or why we were so heavily interviewed.

That sort of thing has been SOP in NJ for years. When I lived there
back in the md-80s I was always flabbergasted by how close the NJ State
Police uniforms resemble those of a certain Reich (avoiding Godwin),
complete with jackboots. NJ has always seemed to bend over backwards to
intimidate their citizens with LE. The day I moved out of there was one
of the happiest in my life.

I missed Ami's original post, so I'm quoting it for context.

Anyway, that sort of treatment was essentially unconstitutional prior to
the recent Supreme Court decision I was referring to before. Ami *would
have been* completely within his rights to tell them to shove it, beyond
showing his drivers' license to comply with state laws regarding
operation of a motor vehicle. His wife wouldn't have had to say a damn
thing or even acknowledge them, absent probable cause on their part to
believe a crime had been committed and that they might have been
involved.

*Sigh*

--
Herb Schaltegger, B.S., J.D.
"Never underestimate the power of human stupidity."
~ Robert A. Heinlein
http://www.angryherb.net

"Herb Schaltegger"
His wife wouldn't have had to say a damn
thing or even acknowledge them, absent probable cause

Of course you are correct, no question. In the "real world", which
includes NJ and all the other states, cops often ask a passenger for
their name and so on. Their reasons and methods are inscrutable to all
but themselves and maybe a few judges.

It is curious that some cops, police officers, are sensitive to civil
rights. I was expressing an opinion to an officer the other day that I
thought that everyone should have an ID card. He said that he disagreed,
and that if someone wants to walk down a street anonymously that they
should be able to do so. Hell it may have been the same one who asked my
passenger for ID earlier.

In article , says...
In the "real world", which
includes NJ and all the other states, cops often ask a passenger for
their name and so on.

Asking for a name, or even an ID, is one thing. *Demanding* it (under
penalty of arrest or worse), is something else altogether.

I don't have a problem with the former. The latter is worrisome...
--
Kevin Willoughby lid

Imagine that, a FROG ON-OFF switch, hardly the work
for test pilots. -- Mike Collins

In message , Revision
writes
"Herb Schaltegger"
His wife wouldn't have had to say a damn
thing or even acknowledge them, absent probable cause

Of course you are correct, no question. In the "real world", which
includes NJ and all the other states, cops often ask a passenger for
their name and so on. Their reasons and methods are inscrutable to all
but themselves and maybe a few judges.

It is curious that some cops, police officers, are sensitive to civil
rights. I was expressing an opinion to an officer the other day that I
thought that everyone should have an ID card. He said that he disagreed,
and that if someone wants to walk down a street anonymously that they
should be able to do so. Hell it may have been the same one who asked my
passenger for ID earlier.


AIUI, the police here are similarly opposed to it (after all, they don't
want extra work which would hurt their chance for a 5-year "career
break" - see today's papers here.)
But then everyone except our Home Secretary and the firms that would
make billions from amassing that personal data are opposed to ID cards.
And even David Blunkett has been quiet about personal privacy since
_his_ secrets were aired.
Sorry, I'm feeling bitter. OT threads can be a bad idea!
--
What have they got to hide? Release the ESA Beagle 2 report.
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.