CingularDuality

You mean having the police actually patrol a neighborhood? After I woke up from the dream, I'd think it was great. What is the downside? If the only people disturbed are criminals, then what's the problem?

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Root

I can see your point of view Cing, but if they were allowed to do that, what would be the next thing they were allowed to do, and after that and after that? A national DNA database that held records of absolutely everyone would stop innocent people, and even criminals who on any particular occasion were innocent being convicted, but would it really be a good thing or big brother taking another big step forward? A new amendment to the constitution to remove the right to bear arms would take guns away from criminals (at least thats what the politicians would tell you). Of course it would also have the side effect of making any uprising mostly unarmed.

The issue with the dogs would only affect criminals, but over time it could form part of a serious errosion to civil rights. No police officer should be allowed to take a sniffer dog onto private property unless they have a warrant. If there's no warrant, send an officer without a dog.

Root

__________________

CingularDuality

You're trying to compare things that have an immense impact on the citizenry with something that does nothing but find crimes. There's no comparison...
How does catching criminals without effecting law abiding citizens form part of an erosion of civil rights? There are no rights to commit crimes. When you commit a crime, you lose rights, including your right to privacy. If a drug dog is unable to violate a law abiding person's privacy, then it's not a search, it's pure crime detection. It's not like these dogs can search for an unrelated crime. When they're on publicly accessible property (where anyone can walk up to your door and ring the doorbell), then no warrant is needed.

__________________

Become a supporting member! -- Shop at the Tactical Market!

Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

Root

Taken in isolation, the concept of dogs that can only detect drugs being allowed to sniff around on private property is fantastic. Drug dealers are down there with child abusers. However, it's not going to stop there. The ultimate conclusion would be the telescreen, but you could stop far short of that and still have violated civil rights. You should be free to commit crime, just like you should be free to fund the opposition party. In the case of this guy and the drugs, the police should have had to catch him *selling* the drugs.

As for your statement about losing your rights if you're a criminal, I kinda agree with you, but as I live in the EU it's not the case. If you shoot me, and before you can shoot the next victim, the police kill you, they could wind up in court over your human rights. If we took sky tv out of our prisons, criminals would most likely succeed in a court action that claimed this was a breach of their human rights. It's a crazy world.

Root

__________________