History has shown us that government is addicted to power, and will often abuse it when given the chance. This isn’t anything specific to government, per se - it’s a predictable aspect of human nature. Take any group of people, make them feel special, give them power over others, and with enough time, they’ll find a way to misuse it. This is almost something that can be taken for granted - so much so, that the Founders wrote the Constitution specifically to curb such abuses of power. Oh, THAT’S what those Amendments were for? It’s too bad someone didn’t tell us that, before we legislated them away.
This footage is a few years old, but I had not seen the ABC News clip until recently. Here we see oppression being put into practice on a local scale - surreal video of military troops patrolling American neighborhoods, and with the assistance of local law enforcement, running willy-nilly through houses, disarming people and trampling on multiple Constitutional rights.
Now follows another video from the NRA about some law-abiding people who got stepped on by their own government.
March 9th, 2008 at 8:14 pm
Stephen, I don’t dispute that power corrupts in many instances, but your point is somewhat lost in that this is:
A) Occuring in a situation of exceptional circumstances (something you don’t mention in the preface)
and
B) Law enforcement is power corrupted in part because they have guns, and in part because they are fearing the guns of others. This is obviously a situation where everyone thinks the other is going to shoot them. Remove the guns and you won’t have that issue.
The problem here is not so much government, its guns in the hands of both sides.
I almost pissed myself laughing watching those sob stories; spinning it so that it came off as the big bad boogymen coming to take away their precious projectile launching hunks of metal, IN A TIME OF CHAOS and EMERGENCY no less. If I didn’t know what they were talking about, I would have thought that these testimonials were talking about the loss of a close family member. I wonder if you would be posting this, if the article showed law enforcement disarming young black males in a ghetto neighborhood. Would you suggest that law enforcement be given the discression when that discretion would amount to, “Oh ok these are white people from an upper class neighborhood, they can keep their weapons.” What kind of problems do you think that would create?
“Theys a came and up and took ma gun…”
Oh..and I love how this is supposedly a PR video and one guy is drinking a beer while they interview him. Slim pickings for them NRA types I guess, but at least its being honest.
The whole thing was priceless. lol.
March 9th, 2008 at 9:19 pm
Laws and civil rights are most necessary when everyone thinks they have a reason to temporarily put them on hold. I didn’t recognize the “exceptional circumstances” of the post-Katrina situation because they’re not a justification for surmounting the rule of law. If law enforcement more clearly knew its legal role, the problem would not exist.
Similarly, a time of chaos and emergency is when people would most need firearms for self-defense. Regardless, there are no differences that can be made here, either - just for a supposed “exceptional circumstance”.
March 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Socialist Mark must have a comfortable feeling wrapped in the warm blanket of the nanny-state.
March 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
Mark, chances are high that those black kids in the ghetto did not get their fire arms legally.
So long as you have the paper work to carry concealed, or you have passed the back ground check to purchase and keep your gun in your home or car, then there is no problem. But, like any tool, use it correctly.
March 14th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
It really doesn’t matter to me the race or location of a citizen - a Constitutional right is a right, so long as it’s being legally exercised.
March 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Oh God… there’s a once-in-a-generation national emergency in a large American city and Stephen gets upset when the police knock loudly on the door.
Where are all you right-wingers when police are indiscriminantly firing tear gas canisters and rubber bullets (not lethal only if they don’t go through one’s eye) at unarmed antiwar protesters. Do you have to be a red neck gun-toting idiot to get the love from the militia/NRA crowd?
March 15th, 2008 at 9:42 pm
Protesters have a right to freedom of speech, so long as they don’t violate the law while doing it. Demonstration permits are typically issued so that police can close off streets for such marches; protesters that intentionally obstruct traffic are usually violating a number of municipal ordinances. Moreover, many protests involve vandalism and burglary, with people smashing windows and stealing/ransacking the contents. In such cases, the police would be remiss if they did not take action.
Obviously, protests tend to be highly ambiguous; there is much question as to who is actually involved, who committed crimes and who was peaceful, etc. They can become chaotic situations. If any LEOs break the law in such a situation, or arrest protesters without cause, then appropriate criminal/civil legal action should be taken.
Home entry, on the other hand, is much more of a black-and-white issue…the cops are either on your private property for no reason, or they’re not. They have no legal standing to do what they were doing on video; it’s really that simple.
March 18th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
Oh… so residents of New Orleans that ignored a *mandatory* evacuation order weren’t violating “municipal laws?”
I didn’t see the police indiscriminantly entering homes in New Orleans. They were doing so after a once-in-a-lifetime national emergency after it was apparent that the federal government, filled with people from *your* political party that don’t believe in a role for the federal government, failed to act to save people’s lives. I know you have a tough time with the idea of a proper federal role (invading other’s people’s countries– a o.k.– plucking people off of flooded rooftops– not so good but this is especially ridiculous
March 18th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
The area that was portrayed in the video had incurred little damage and was in no specific danger from flooding or otherwise, making a mandatory evacuation order legally questionable. Moreover, the violation of such an order (which is, as you say, a one-time event) does not justify the breaking of Constitutional law, on a one-time basis or otherwise.
The government breaking the law on a selective, once-in-a-lifetime basis is no different from a citizen who does the same thing for rather tenuous reasons. What is the actual purpose of entering homes? If a house has been blown over, then it would be permissible to look for survivors, but these homes did not appear to have been damaged until the authorities kicked the doors in. Rooftop plucking is fine if people are requesting assistance (clearly the case in some urban areas that were flooded) but everyone here seems to have been relatively ok, until the cops showed up.