|
Main Menu
> Just say 'no'...
> BUSTED DVD Info > Our Next Film > About Flex Your Rights > Police Stop Stats > Case Law and You Frequently Asked Questions Flex Success Stories Donate to Flex Your Rights Contact Us Disclaimer FYR Google Search
Sign up for FyR Emails
Receive FREE email updates: BUSTED Endorsements
"I recently had the opportunity to show BUSTED to an introductory-level criminal justice course, which has approximately 300 students. The actors in the film are about the age of my students and the scenarios are situations familiar to my students. The reaction was overwhelmingly positive. By showing both what can go wrong and how it can be righted, they went away with a much better understanding of their constitutional rights. It’s an excellent film that I would highly recommend." Dr. Ralph A. Weisheit, Illinois State University Dept. of Criminal Justice Advertisement
|
|
Advertisements
|
No
The amendments to the Bill of Rights in question were written to protect the *innocent* and they lay out a rough procedure in handling those suspected of crimes (warrants, compensation for confiscation, etc.), as well as those found guilty of them (no cruel and unusual punishments, double jeopardy, etc.).
Your logic is circular. Juries determine guilt or innocence. You’re saying the Bill of Rights is there to protect the innocent. How would we determine that without due process? Only innocence exists without due process. The Constitution protects us all, until we are proven guilty, and even after that we still have some rights (no cruel or unusual punishments, etc.) I know it’s a hard fact to swallow, but one of the problems with juries and the assumption of innocence is that criminals will sometimes go free. I can deal with that, considering that in any case criminals will go free no matter what, and sometimes criminals even wear badges and are above the law. It’s the price we pay for a free society.
. . . and until drug users learn to control themselves and quit being a nuisance to society when they're high, drugs will remain illegal
And until police and uninformed dopes stop hating on pot heads and focusing on real crimes, I think we should assert our rights.
delegated to them by the people,
Not in many cases they aren't. Law enforcement agencies lobby lawmakers, so they delegate powers to themselves too. See the DEA for more examples of this.
If you don't like that, try moving to a different country where the average citizen contact with the police begins with a beating and we'll see how long it takes for you to come running back to this "oppressive police state" called America.
More of this "You don't like it? Move to xxx! [pick a country for xxx]", nonsense. There are plenty of countries where police don't batter citizens every occasion they get. Watch me do the same thing with the following sentences. Perhaps we should move to other countries with more sensible drug/police policies, but I love this particular country (US), and people have the right to petition the government for redress to change things here. I just dislike people like you that make my country the bigoted hateful place it can sometimes be. And if you don't like that, then you can move to xxx (dictatorial country of your choice) where they don't have that right! Perhaps you would be more happy there, and please--do stay.
I know I didn't address your whole post. But I hope you can live with that.
And speaking of facts, drugs aren't even on the top ten lists of deaths in the US. The top 3 are heart disease, cancer and accidents (non-vehicular.) So we should really be illegalizing McDonalds and stairwells, if we want to use the safety argument.