|
Originally Posted by dgolding
(Post 8356245)
No, its not. The problem, as any LEO should know is that in order to catch the next Ted Bundy, it would require many illegal searches. You wouldn't just be violating the rights of a serial killer, many other people (innocent people's) rights would be violated. Thats why the exclusionary rule exists. Really, the exclusionary rule is a break for LEOs - they could be prosecuted for illegal searches.
In fact, I've long thought that should be the case. Prosecute the officer, but let the evidence stand. It's not like the officer's actions made the offender's guilt less. And no, you wouldn't need to go on a massive fishing expedition to catch one specific fish. You could suspect the person is guilty and call in an "anonymous tip" or know this person was guilty and cut some other corner. It doesn't have to be systemic. |
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 8350707)
If ID is not required at all for domestic flights, then it should not matter if the flyer carries fictitious ID.
I'm a generally pure-as-the-driven-snow kind of guy, yet some posters here, with their liberal interpretation of what law enforcement should be allowed to do, will surely make a radical of me one day. Your idea of ID checks are anathema to every American Citizen. How do you realistically enforce a no-fly list if ID is not required? |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8356662)
Ah, the hypocrisy surfaces.
How do you realistically enforce a no-fly list if ID is not required? ID is not required -today- for domestic flights. No explosives, no weapons, you fly. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget I'm not so sure that I see anything wrong with ID verification. ... those of us in law enforcement...
Originally Posted by Wally Bird
(Post 8352279)
Plain enough. :td:
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8356693)
Wow, that's a logical explanation for your point of view. :rolleyes:
|
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 8356729)
I thought it so spare and eloquent that any other text would detract from the expressive simplicity of the comment.
|
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8356750)
Succinctness is valuable on a message board, but it seemed more like "Your opinion is tainted beyond consideration".
It took me eleven words to convey the same idea.
Originally Posted by birdstrike
Your idea of ID checks are anathema to every American Citizen.
1) Our lives would certainly have less risk. 2) The cost to our system of government would be too great. Remembering 9/11 should not come at the cost of forgetting 7/4. |
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 8356834)
WRemembering 9/11 should not come at the cost of forgetting 7/4.
Though sadly, I think that's a cost too many are willing to pay. :td: :( |
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 8356834)
Well, yes. Summarized in one simple emoticon.
It took me eleven words to convey the same idea. Most of the opinions I read from the self-professed law enforcement types on this BB leave me with two thoughts. 1) Our lives would certainly have less risk. 2) The cost to our system of government would be too great. Remembering 9/11 should not come at the cost of forgetting 7/4. Either we check properly, or we don't check at all. I'm not in favor of turning a simple flight into an Orwellian adventure, just closing loopholes as necessary. Again, the object of law enforcement is to interfere with people's everyday lives as little as possible. |
[QUOTE=We Will Never Forget;8356888]Yet my comment about the no-fly list is left unaddressed./QUOTE]
It was. No ID, no prohibited items, no problem. The no-fly list is a waste of time. It doesn't even have real terrorists on them as the gov't doesn't want to tip them off that they're being watched. :rolleyes: So it makes you wonder, just who is on the list? Like any other database ... garbage in, garbage out. |
[QUOTE=Superguy;8356931]
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8356888)
Yet my comment about the no-fly list is left unaddressed./QUOTE]
It was. No ID, no prohibited items, no problem. The no-fly list is a waste of time. It doesn't even have real terrorists on them as the gov't doesn't want to tip them off that they're being watched. :rolleyes: So it makes you wonder, just who is on the list? Like any other database ... garbage in, garbage out. But since we still have it, why is not being implemented correctly? There is no point in telling someone how important something is, then disproving yourself by your actions. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8356888)
Either we check properly, or we don't check at all. I'm not in favor of turning a simple flight into an Orwellian adventure, just closing loopholes as necessary.
Again, the object of law enforcement is to interfere with people's everyday lives as little as possible. Otherwise throw rotating roadblocks across every major freeway. Same difference. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8356970)
But since we still have it, why is not being implemented correctly?
|
Originally Posted by birdstrike
(Post 8356982)
Well, then we don't check at all. No weapons, no explosives, you fly.
Otherwise throw rotating roadblocks across every major freeway. Same difference. But nobody has ever declared a "no drive list" essential to homeland security. |
Originally Posted by We Will Never Forget
(Post 8357015)
Somewhat.
But nobody has ever declared a "no drive list" essential to homeland security. |
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:39 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.