Cleveland Police Ask For Emergency Suspension Of Open Carry Laws During Rep. Conv.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 01:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: I actually tend to be the guy not scared of the big bad government, but I think the idea that someone can ask, and then can suspend whatever right they want is a bad idea. You can literally use public safety to justify almost anything.

No you can't.

There has to be a public safety exception.

[Au165]

(07-18-2016, 01:23 PM)fredtoast Wrote: No you can't.

There has to be a public safety exception.

Do we suspend the right to free speech if a terrorist threatens to blow us up if a TV show depicts Muhammad? They claim they will blow up a major city if it happens. Is that okay? If so, what does the threat have to be that public safety matters enough? If not, why not it is a matter of public safety?

My problem is "public safety" is a vague term that can be stretched as far as you need it to.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 01:30 PM)Au165 Wrote: Do we suspend the right to free speech if a terrorist threatens to blow us up if a TV show depicts Muhammad? They claim they will blow up a major city if it happens. Is that okay? If so, what does the threat have to be that public safety matters enough? If not, why not it is a matter of public safety?

My problem is "public safety" is a vague term that can be stretched as far as you need it to.

All terms, including "due process", "national security", and many other are vague. Yet they are all still valid.

Are you saying that there should be no penalty for shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater? Are you saying that paranoid schizophrenics with a history of violent criminal behavior should be allowed to own guns?

You can't just say "No exceptions for anything ever!"

[*bfine32*]

(07-18-2016, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Here is another situation for you. You are about to commit a mass shooting. Who do you shoot first, the gun with the shotgun or the guy with no gun?

Apparently the guy without a gun; as he is a bigger threat.

[Au165]

(07-18-2016, 01:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All terms, including "due process", "national security", and many other are vague.  Yet they are all still valid.

Are you saying that there should be no penalty for shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater?  Are you saying that paranoid schizophrenics with a history of violent criminal behavior should be allowed to own guns?

You can't just say "No exceptions for anything ever!"

Klan rally's can, and have, incited violence. Should we remove their right to publicly assemble and speak freely? 

I can go tit for tat with you all day. In deciding to, upon request, suspend rights temporarily because it makes people uncomfortable is a different discussion. In your examples they are rights that have been take because it is determined they interfere with other people's rights. You can never scream fire in a crowded area, you can never carry a gun with mental illness (not supposed to at least), but now we want to take something that is allowed at all other times and make it only illegal when it makes a specific group uncomfortable?

Can the Republicans then ask to not allow local papers to run negative stories during the convention? I mean after all, it could make people angry and risk the public's safety as they could riot.

They are farfetched, but my point has been the same throughout. Allowing the temporary suspension of rights without a real credible reason is a bad idea in the long run.

[Au165]

Let me expand on this last post. If there was credible sources that said there was some sort of attack planned. I am okay with suspending the right to open carry. My issue is doing it just because it makes everyone feel better inside.

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 02:23 PM)Au165 Wrote: They are farfetched, but my point has been the same throughout. Allowing the temporary suspension of rights without a real credible reason is a bad idea in the long run.

I can't really tell what your point is anymore.

First you agree that there need to be exceptions. Then you say we can't have exceptions.

You list examples that you admit are "farfetched" thinking that it somehow proves we should not make exceptions when the example is NOT "farfetched".

My answer is simple. I believe in exceptions when the grounds are reasonable. The fact that you can come up with fact patterens that are not reasonable does not change anything. But when someone asks for an exception on grounds that are "farfetched" or "unreasonable" then I will oppose them just like you.

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 01:18 PM)Au165 Wrote: What if we need to declare martial law in the name of public safety down the road? What rights are we going to be okay with suspending temporarily? We have already seen this to some extent with the NSA. I think if you start creating loopholes to meet one specific need you open the opportunity for the next.

I actually tend to be the guy not scared of the big bad government, but I think the idea that someone can ask, and then can suspend whatever right they want is a bad idea. You can literally use public safety to justify almost anything.

Oh, I totally get you.

I believe there are an established checklist of qualifiers for martial law that have been legislated.

That is why I was unsure if it were feasible, passing the checks & balances and all.

[Au165]

(07-18-2016, 02:31 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I can't really tell what your point is anymore.

First you agree that there need to be exceptions.  Then you say we can't have exceptions.

You list examples that you admit are "farfetched" thinking that it somehow proves we should not make exceptions when the example is NOT "farfetched".

My answer is simple.  I believe in exceptions when the grounds are reasonable.  The fact that you can come up with fact patterens that are not reasonable does not change anything.  But when someone asks for an exception on grounds that are "farfetched" or "unreasonable" then I will oppose them just like you.

I think it is probably something left up to the courts to determine the more I think on it. I find myself on both sides, wavering back and forth somewhat as oyu can see, as I can see uses but see the slope we can slide down. I think we need a ruling as to what actually constitutes public safety. I started out with no exceptions, but can cede to some exceptions but I struggle to determine who gets to decide when to suspend constitutional rights.

I fear though the suspending of rights could lead to as much, or more, violence as allowing those people to exercise their rights.

[Au165]

On a related note, Ohio has stated they will not suspend them because the governor doesn't have the legal authority to.

[Belsnickel]

(07-18-2016, 03:04 PM)Au165 Wrote: On a related note, Ohio has stated they will not suspend them because the governor doesn't have the legal authority to.

Yeah, I've noticed videos of people with them outside the center.

Some of these videos have been from German news sources with correspondents here in the US. The whole concept of these people just hanging around with firearms baffles them. Which I can't blame them, really, because I'm American and it baffles me.

[GMDino]

(07-18-2016, 03:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I've noticed videos of people with them outside the center.

Some of these videos have been from German news sources with correspondents here in the US. The whole concept of these people just hanging around with firearms baffles them. Which I can't blame them, really, because I'm American and it baffles me.

Overcompensating. 

[McC]

(07-18-2016, 03:26 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Yeah, I've noticed videos of people with them outside the center.

Some of these videos have been from German news sources with correspondents here in the US. The whole concept of these people just hanging around with firearms baffles them. Which I can't blame them, really, because I'm American and it baffles me.

It really is baffling.  What is the intended purpose?  Are they ready to open fire on a moment's notice?  Are they making a statement?  Is it a desperate cry for attention?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 12:58 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Just curious, but how do you know the criminal history of every person you speak with?

I don't and didn't claim to.  I can usually tell if the person I am talking to is up to criminal activity not the many and varied forms such activity may have manifested itself during the entire course of that person's existence.  

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 01:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Actually the guy with the shotgun will probably get robbed more often because criminals like to steal guns.

I'd already addressed that point counselor.  Yet you felt compelled to "cherry pick" something else I said you could parse hairs over.  I wonder why that is?

[Rotobeast]

(07-18-2016, 10:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't and didn't claim to.  I can usually tell if the person I am talking to is up to criminal activity not the many and varied forms such activity may have manifested itself during the entire course of that person's existence.  

C'mon... he's a defense attorney.
The criminals he talks to don't have to lie to him, with that golden attorney/client privilege (which I can only imagine generates a fair amount of guilt and self-loathing ).
He never has to deduce vocal inflections, facial ticks, eye movement, and body posturing.

Well.... maybe when he asks if they're good for the check.
x2

[fredtoast]

(07-18-2016, 10:41 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I don't and didn't claim to.  I can usually tell if the person I am talking to is up to criminal activity not the many and varied forms such activity may have manifested itself during the entire course of that person's existence.  

So was the kid that asked you what time it was outside of a liquor store involved in criminal activity?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-18-2016, 11:59 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: C'mon... he's a defense attorney.
The criminals he talks to don't have to lie to him, with that golden attorney/client privilege (which I can only imagine generates a fair amount of guilt and self-loathing ).
He never has to deduce vocal inflections, facial ticks, eye movement, and body posturing.

Well.... maybe when he asks if they're good for the check.
x2

I actually have had very few issues with PD's, CRT's and private defense attorneys.  Most of them know that many of their clients are lying pieces of shit, but they have a legit job to do in court.  It's their job just as much as putting their clients before the court is mine, I certainly don't begrudge them that.  Additionally, I've actually helped the defense on a few occasions when I though a legitimate injustice was being done.  When I have issue with them is when they go all out, no holds barred, attacking the integrity, the basic professionalism, of the people who have put their client before the court.  One of the fondest moments of my professional life was when a trial judge smacked down a DPD who, in a very lawyery way, called me a liar while testifying.  Sheer bliss.  The same attorney told me in the elevator after court that there were no hard feelings and that they were just doing their job.  I informed them that their job didn't involve impugning my integrity in court and that our conversation was over.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(07-19-2016, 12:09 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So was the kid that asked you what time it was outside of a liquor store involved in criminal activity?

Yup.  No doubt.  The fact that you're trying to challenge me on this topic is amusing though.

[Rotobeast]

(07-19-2016, 12:10 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I actually have had very few issues with PD's, CRT's and private defense attorneys.  Most of them know that many of their clients are lying pieces of shit, but they have a legit job to do in court.  It's their job just as much as putting their clients before the court is mine, I certainly don't begrudge them that.  Additionally, I've actually helped the defense on a few occasions when I though a legitimate injustice was being done.  When I have issue with them is when they go all out, no holds barred, attacking the integrity, the basic professionalism, of the people who have put their client before the court.  One of the fondest moments of my professional life was when a trial judge smacked down a DPD who, in a very lawyery way, called me a liar while testifying.  Sheer bliss.  The same attorney told me in the elevator after court that there were no hard feelings and that they were just doing their job.  I informed them that their job didn't involve impugning my integrity in court and that our conversation was over.

Man.... you need to share your experiences through an action/comedy/drama cop show on TV.

But more seriously, I do respect the job that people within court system do.
I find it intriguing and often thought how much of great feeling it might be to stand up for someone who really deserved help.
The closest I've come is being a Union Steward.