Constant's pations

If it's more than 30 minutes old, it's not news. It's a blog.

Friday, October 08, 2004

Public forums: To justify government intrusions, yet also denying the public the right to exercise those rights?

Notice the contrast. Government officials define a "public place," such as a street, as public to justify their actions...

"'public places' historically associated with the free exercise of expressive activities, such as streets, sidewalks, and parks, are considered, without more, to be 'public forums.'" United States v. Grace, 461 U.S. 171, 177 (1983). A government may also affirmatively designate property as a public
forum "for use by the public at large for assembly and speech, for use by certain speakers, or for the discussion of certain subjects." Cornelius, 473 U.S. at 802. Ref

... but then they turn around and say, "You are not entitled to exercise your rights in this public place."

If this "isn't a public place" for me, then it should also not be a "public place" for them to exercise their authority.

Or, with more words:

If a street is "no longer public" and "the public cannot exercise their right to freely come, go, and protest," then the public-servant should not be allowed to rely on the "public place" as the justification for them exercsiing their authority.

Move along, officer! If we don't have rights to peacefully travel, then neither do you have the "private right" of inquiry, nor the ability to compel responses to questions that need not be answered, per the 5th Amendment.

The Bill of Rights still applies, regardless our status: Suspect, free citizen, witness, victim, lowly-lowlife, or someone you do not know. We are innocent until proven guilty.

If you would like to preach that "we are all suspect" [because you do not understand something], then so too should the public be able to label you "suspicious" and worthy of close monitoring and scrutiny.

If you want to dance around and say "come help us" despite the arrogant treatment toward the public, do not be surprised when the "call for assistance" goes unanswered. Sure, you can compel people to assist you; but do not assume that "if you suddenly have a problem" anyone is going to care.

This is what happens when you alientate an otherwise supportive civilian population. There is a loss in public support when the civilians are treated like cattle, and compelled to assent and respond at a whim. When you really need help, there are fewer likely to freely come forward.

Many were willing to assist, until you started to abuse those who simply were trying to help you in the first place. This is why people are less likely, then ultimately refrain, from assisting you. It is not worth the hassle.

How are those private databases going--still meeting your Brady requests; or are you still hiding the information from the public defender in the "unofficial databases". You know, those files you keep that keep personal information unrleated to the incident reports, and unrelated to criminal activity.

That's right, the place where you keep all the detailed information related to:

- Assocaties
- Work history
- Where spend time
- Contact information
- Nick names
- Responses and information from informants
- Etc

You guys have all the answers. Why don't you go find them yourself?

Answer: You have no clue, that's why youre still beating your head against the wall.

You lost one more vote in the "fight for justice." You are making your own job that much tougher by abusing those who might have actually come forward when you most needed help.

I have little sympaty for you when you face hardship. You haven't helped out when needed; not going to return the "assistance."

You're on your own. Enjoy.