Originally Posted by
studentff
Social shame vs social outcast/branding is 6 of 1 half-dozen of another to me.
I lean toward protecting the rights of millions of innocent citizens over the quality-of-life of bad cops and social-status of their families. It seems you go the other way.
Their chance for redress is the same that people have had for centuries. Distance themselves from the offenders, leave town, and if necessary change their names.
Abuse I would rain down? Have you read about what TSA has done to innocents via the NFL, supposedly occasional bad actions of supposedly rogue TSOs (big stuff like forcing to drink breastmilk, abuse of the disabled, forcing a woman to remove a nipple ring with pliers while TSOs giggled at her, forcing minors to drop their pants, confiscating/destroying non-WEI property)? And "little" stuff like the OP's story (which was enabled by TSA), the Bierfieldt case, and the repeated incidents in PHL. Have you read about the increasing police abuses of innocent citizens (google "cheye calvo" or "atlanta police shoot 92 year old") and the consistent police efforts to cover up and defend these actions?
The difference is that I have no dictatorial or tyrannical ambitions. I just want to see justice for the innocent citizens who have suffered these abuses and to see the rest of us left alone and allowed to live our lives in a free country, not a police state.
(directed at another poster, not me: )
The HPD described by the OP would fit in better.
Hmmmm I thought this country was about protecting the right of the individual? Actually, I know I am correct in this. It IS about individual liberties. So your darn right I go the other way.
The argument you make about protecting the "millions" over the individual is basically what every despotic nation in the last 100 years has used. Such despotic rulers do the evil things they do to the individuals for the good of everyone else (the country). You name here on FT suggest you are or have been a student. NOT to be insulting, but I suggest you can learn more about this; take some good history classes (and SERIOUSLY, I did not mean that as an insult!
) It IS ALWAYS ABOUT INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. ALWAYS.
However, I could care less about the quality of life of good cops vs bad cops. To clarify, I post my first response to you because of several key words you used, one of which you have not used again - and I think for good measure.
You stated the families of the cops should be "ostracized". This is certainly cruel and unusual, in my opinion. Why would the children or husband/wife of a LEO who violates someones civil liberties deserve such a thing? How can anyone claim to support democracy, when they so willingly trample on the rights and liberty and dignity of innocent people?
I am all for holding public servanct finicially accountable when it appears they willfully violated their trust is such a gross way. Even if that puts them on the street, and their family too, by default. But to "ostracize" the entire family for the actions of one? Nope, not good; not what a democratic nation does.
And by the way, public shame does NOT equal or equate to "ostracize". Someone can be ostracized and feel no shame, or there be no public shame involved. But again, you used that word only once, and seem to have withdrawn from it - but you haven't publically stated so.
And yes, if you would treat innocent people such, I would be fearful that you would rain down abuse on undeserving people. And it does NOT matter that you think (even IF its true) that TSA abuses people. Or are you really going to argue that "two wrongs make a right"? Again, as you name here suggest, I certainly hope not.
Now I have one more post tonight, and then thats about all I will say on this subject, unless the OP eventually post more info.