|
|
Posted by Rev Turd Fredericks on 03/25/06 06:39
Connie Pierce wrote:
> In article <MPG.1e8d64b3ac5231ff98984d@news.isp.com>, Neredbojias
> <invalid@neredbojias.com> wrote:
SNIP>>>>
>
> No, realisitic. I grew up on the streets of DC . . . the worst crime
> ridden area in the States (evne worse than NY, actually). I've seen
> shit that would make your hair turn white. Shit that woudn't have
> happened if there were VCs. As someone who's been the vic of crime on
> the streets, I thinnk it's damned good idea. If there had been a VC, I
> know I wouldn't have been a vic. So shoot me for wanting to protect the
> next poor schmuck from meeting the same fate as I.
Video cameras don't protect anyone, they only record their deaths for
posterity.
>
> BTW, I'm not advocating VCs on ALL streets (and neither is our gov) -
> just the ones that have the highest iincidents of rape, murder, drugs,
> etc. Places, to be honest, innocent citizens shouldn't be to BE taped.
> At least not at night.
>
> And they have implemented a few cameras in DC and yas know what? Those
> few streets now have kids playing on them during the day and evening,
> crime has gone w-a-a-a-y down (almost non-existent), and values have
> gone up. And I've seen the footage and no one looks repressed - they
> look happy, safe, and like you or I do when walking down the street,
> knowing that a gang of Crips isn't going to shoot them down in cold
> blood over a pair of sneaks.
>
It's not the video cameras that are causing this, it is the mere fact
that authorities are paying attention to those areas, they could do a
much more effective job if they posted police in those locations, or
even police holding video cameras.
> In DC, a family of four turns down the wrong street and is shot by gang
> members for invading their turf - 16 mo baby's head is literally shot
> off her shoulders by the gunfire. Mom, baby, and brother (4) all die,
> Father lives with severe brain damage (I think he actually ended up
> dying later). That happened on a street that is now uunder
> surviellance. Since then, no crime.
>
> Most of the citizens who now have their streets VTed are grateful.I
> think personally, the community should be the ones to decide. It's
> THEIR lives and THEIR safety. Not yours. If a VC fucks up your day and
> makes you feel hinky, but saves the lives of innocent people going to
> work, to the store, etc, well . . . that's too bad. I have the right
> to live and my right to live outweighs your right to feel comfy on the
> street.
That is a job for the police, that's what we pay taxes for. The fact
that things got so bad that the authorities decided to install a $100
video camera means that you, as a taxpayer are being ripped off.
>
> LOL, actually, as I think I said before, it cuts down on tourism and
> takes dollars away from the LIBs (not the Reps) running our fair little
> burg here. Family values has nothing to do with it - money does. The
> Dems want to shut all of the places like Club LeVela, the strip clubs,
> etc, down period. The Reps say that a few well-placed VC would be
> enough to discourage kids fucking in front of the local nightclub.
> Unless the kids in question are potential porn stars and too cheap to
> make their own video tape . . . They also think that a few VCs would
> keep tourists from getting knifed outside of the local tittie bar.
One of the things that is making America *less* great is people passing
judgment on others. Please to explain what is wrong with a lustful
couple making love in front of/behind of/beside a nightclub. It's only
those so quick to morally judge others that object to such things. Video
cameras do nothing and probably actually encourage people to do such
things. Perhaps a moral compass should be installed on each street
corner to judge those that would be so quick to judge others.
>
> Didn't come off that way, sorry. It came off as though you were telling
> me that *I* don't think.
>> However, it is without sarcasm that
>> I can quite truthfully say there is little crime in a police state.
Plenty of crime in a police state, otherwise they wouldn't need police.
Problem is, the police arrest *everyone* for *everything* until there is
no one left to commit crimes.
>
> Very true, but then that woudn't have a snowball's chance of happening
> in the US. LOL.
>
> No, really . . . Police state? Bullshit. *THAT'S* pretty naive of you
> to think that's going to happen. That's giving our parties w-a-a-a-a-y
> too much "credit" - considering the fact that our gov doesn't agree on
> *ANYTHING* I don't see our Dem & Rep parties agreeing on anything close
> to that. 1984 was a piece of fiction. Police states in society are
> rare, especially in a capitalist one. LOL.
I don't suppose you have seen the latest news stories coming out of
Texas, where police are going into bars and arresting people for being
drunk? That is in essence the police state. Oh no, it can't happen here.
>
> No, really, let's look at GW (a good candidate for creating a PS if I
> ever saw one) . . . if GW tried to pass some kind of bullshit like
> that, either by law or by action, he would be stopped in five seconds
> flat by the Dems, the Reps who don't agrgee with him, the people, the
> lobbyist groups, etc. Even our own military, who's been taught what a
> "lawful" order is, woudn't assist him. And he'd need the soldiers to do
> it.
Seems the patriot act is alive and well, wake up.
>>>>> Personally, I figure if you're in public, you're in full view of others
>>>>> (some of whom, esp with the video camera industry the way it is now,
>>>>> may be filming you). I figure "what's the difference?" If you
>>>>> re doing something stupid or funny but not a crime, the people who are
>>>>> more likely to use that "against" you are the common citizen with their
>>>>> HandyCam (America's Funniest??).
>>>> Would there be any difference if _every cubic inch_ of so-called "public
>>>> space" was video-recorded 24/7?
>>> I don't get what you mean . . . privacy *IS* a basic American right,
>>> but several cases have proven that you are only "guaranteed" privacy in
>>> your own home or business (unless they use cameras, too). Personally, I
>>> don't mind it. I'm not retarded enough to do anything that could be
>>> misconstrued in public.
>> I mean that if the average person in the US ever was under constant
>> scrutiny by authoritarian forces, your freedoms would be history. Many
>> of them are history now. You just don't realize it.
>
> Not really. We have the US Constitution here. It takes damn nigh a war
> to toss out one of our amendments or constititional rights. See the
> comment up above about getting our two parties to agree on *ANYTHING* .
> . . most often, we have one party control the WH, and one party
> control Congress. Just how I like it personally. No party whould have
> all the power. And in our country, no one does. It's a system of checks
> and blanaces, not a Monarchy.
That's the hard part. It's easy to pass a constitutional amendment but
not so easy to get rid of them.
>
> Typically, the countries that dissolved into PSs were Monarchies
> (Russia, China),
Where do you get your information?
Dictatorships (Germany), and such - not democracies.
> Our Congress can veto ANYTHING that the Prez decideds should be a law.
????? For fucks sake, I'm not even an American citizen and I know that
is not correct.
> In order to change or modify the Constitution, all three branches have
> to come into play at some point. And again, they don't play nicely. For
> goodness sake, we can't even agree on a memorial for the WTC!
As far as I know, the WTC was never and still is not federal property.
The only ones that will ultimately decide on a WTC memorial are the
property owners. ie. unless the government wants to contribute some
dough, it's between the property owners and the local government.
>
> And again, NO ONE has any privacy on the street. Are you trying to tell
> me that you walk around in an opaque bubble (the only way possible to
> have privacy on the street) - how do you keep from walking into things,
> much less getting hit by a car? Wow. I certainly couldn't do that . . .
> I'd be smooshed in seconds.
Nobody has any privacy from other people walking about in public, but
since when have we charged the government with responsibility for
watching our every move? Seems to me the original framers of the
constitution were looking for *less* government and not more. We don't
have an expectation of privacy when put in the same spot with our fellow
citizens, but the government has NO business watching our private lives.
>
> And if someone is following you about you can summon a cop HERE in the
> US for harrassment, not invasion of privacy.
If that were true, we could summon a cop if the cops were watching us,
but that is clearly absurd.
If you told a cop that he
> was invading your "privacy" on a public street, he'd thinnk you were a
> nut. Now if you told him that this guy is following you and making you
> nervous, he'd stop the guy (maybe arrest him) or give you an escort of
> some kind (been there, done that, have the T-shirt). But invasion of
> privacy? That's a good one, LOL.
Again, that is absurd, if that were true you could summon the police
because the government was making you nervous following you with their
surveillance cameras.
>
> No, I'm not a Lib, I don't believe in Eugenics . . . ( : the Libs
> backed Hitler, not the Reps. We weren't even close to being in power.
> And some of the most respected Libs were the ones who pushed for the
> sterilization of the "feeble-minded" (AKA, the Jews,
> African-Americans,Polish, the poor, etc. The Reps didn't push for the
> execution of them. Or the institutionalization of them, either. We
> actually tried to stop it. ( ; But then, I guess us Reps are just
> stupid that way, huh? Unthinking?
Where do you get this information???????
>
> And honestly, if you pick your nose on the street and get videotaped,
> *where* is the damamge? Where is the lost freedom? Yeah, some guy,
> night watchman, archiver *might* see the footage of you digging for
> gold in the middle of Main Street - okay, he has a *private* laugh at
> your expense. So the hell what??
You fail to understand the concept of freedom. Private individuals are
*free* to videotape what they want, just about anywhere they want. This
includes you following your neighbors around town as they pick their
nose and wipe their ass. However, where this breaks down is when the
video camera is in the hands of the government for the purpose of
surveilling those that don't want to be surveilled. Your responsibility
to your government ends at paying your taxes, and that does not include
them knowing your whereabouts at all times.
>
> Now let's shift to a more ominous matter: you're a rapist and you just
> dragged poor Mary off the street, raped her, murdered her. A tape, if
> reviewed later, might prevent you from doing that again, saving a life.
> Joseph Smith dragged Carlie (and pardon me if I use this scenario
> again, this was in my neck of the woods so I'm a little touchy about
> it) off the street, raped her, beat her, murdered her. He was caught
> using a VC. That VC saved another girl from sharing Carlie's fate. Damn
> good thing, I say.
Just remember, and this is a VERY important distinction: That whole
situation was captured on a PRIVATE video tape on PRIVATE property. We
are all guaranteed the right to protect our property. The purpose of
that video surveillance was to protect private property. The fact that
that crime was captured on tape was a lucky break. Government
surveillance is a totally different issue. For one, the government would
not have a camera at a private car wash, instead, they would deploy
cameras where they would be likely to collect revenue. The government
has little interest in protecting private citizens. Just look at where
government (mostly municipal) surveillance cameras are currently
deployed: busy intersections. This has done nothing to improve public
safety, but it has generated a lot of revenue. Are you ready to trust
cameras deployed by the feds?
>
>
> No, but it puts paid to the Rep bullshit you're spewing. *I'M* a Rep
> (don't believe in abortion, thank-you-very-much - why? cause I think
> it's murder) and I'm no lock-stepper. The Reps in gov are typically
> ultra right wingers, Rep citizens are thoughful, intelligent people. To
> categorize someone solely on their politics is not only insulting, but
> it's retarded. Have you ever stopped a Rep on the street and asked them
> why they feel/vote the way they do? They'll tell you why without
> resorting to bullshit like assigning ulterior motives to the other
> party. Or citing the Libs as idiots or irresponsible.
>
> Don't know if you're a Lib/Dem or not, but the most asinine of them
> that I've met - the cultish onees . . . well, you'd fit in quite
> nicely from your attitude. they automatically (the cultish ones, not
> the *average one*) think that Rep citizens are brainwashed and stupid.
> They tell us THEY know what's best for us.
>
> If we went to a poolice state it would be by the Libs and it would look
> a lot like the one in Demolitiion Man . . . not 1894. The Reps are
> continually under attack and the Libs here sue over EVERYTHING (did you
> spit in front of a lady? Well, you just violated her rights!). The Reps
> rape the environment (something I'm not happy with), they shove our
> asses into war at the drop of the hat. and they;re greedy for moolah.
> But they dont tell us how to think, they just want $$. The Libs here
> try to tell us how to think, what to say, what to do, what not to do.
> Damn, I'm too scared to fart on a public street, knowing that some Lib
> will sue me for "environmental violation."
All politics aside, if the feds started watching us with cameras, we
will never get rid of them regardless of who is in power. It will be the
end of privacy as we know it.
>
> We would. It's called being a part of our government. It's called
> voting. It's called responsible politics. Again, our gov is a system of
> checks and balances. Even the prez can't fart without someone saying
> "eww!" CIA head honcho? The press will oust his latest wrong-doings.
> Then we'll scream, the ACLU will get into the mix (somehow, they always
> do) and he'll be history (or promoted, depending on how big the stink
> is). But again, don't judge my country's politics by yours.
>
> Got a little pissed off here, I admit. Mainly because it seems to me
> the people who scream so loudly about freedoms and such usually have
> too much already. They apprently have the freedom to tell me how I
> should think and to say that their right to walk down the street
> feeling good vibes is more important that other's rights to stay alive
> and live in crime free areas.
> *shrugs*
>
Just tell me one thing: When has a surveillance camera saved one single
life if it wasn't directly manned by a human? If you think putting
cameras on street corners will do anything but solve crimes after the
fact you have some serious reasoning problems.
--
If English was good enough for Jesus
It's good enough for Texas.
-Texas proverb :-)
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|