130 replies to this topic

[Prancer]

http://www.norwichbu...military-copter

[7-5-7]

Can they even be detained for doing nothing wrong? The helicopter obviously wasn't blocked off by any means. With people being so sue-happy these days you have to be careful when you just "detain" somebody like this.

[LA_PHX]

7-5-7, on Oct 27 2010, 08:09 AM, said:

Can they even be detained for doing nothing wrong? The helicopter obviously wasn't blocked off by any means. With people being so sue-happy these days you have to be careful when you just "detain" somebody like this.

Sure, all they need to have is reasonable suspicion to detain someone and honestly, it doesn't take much to have "reasonable suspicion."  But they can only detain someone for so long until they have to be charged with something or released.

[FL050]

Sue for what?  They were detained for a short period, not arrested.

Edited by FL050, 27 October 2010 - 01:16 PM.

[pyruvate]

7-5-7, on Oct 27 2010, 08:39 PM, said:

Can they even be detained for doing nothing wrong? The helicopter obviously wasn't blocked off by any means. With people being so sue-happy these days you have to be careful when you just "detain" somebody like this.

With the idiots (terrorists?) teaming on this planet, I don't think that anything should be given chance.

[AmericanAirFan]

pyruvate, on Oct 27 2010, 01:29 PM, said:

With the idiots (terrorists?) teaming on this planet, I don't think that anything should be given chance.

Even pilots who have their own aircraft capable of whatever they want with their private aircraft? A lot of fear mongering going on these days...

Quote

State police said the three people arrived at the airport on a private plane Monday and were preparing to leave on Tuesday.

[THBatMan8]

7-5-7, on Oct 27 2010, 11:09 AM, said:

Can they even be detained for doing nothing wrong? The helicopter obviously wasn't blocked off by any means. With people being so sue-happy these days you have to be careful when you just "detain" somebody like this.

Anyone can be detained for any reason, as getting detained is not a arrest. However, you do need reasonable cause to detain someone or you could be charged with false imprisonment/kidnapping.

Edited by Water_Boy, 27 October 2010 - 04:29 PM.

[Cactus]

Don't worry folks, you still live in the "home of the free"

Keep telling yourselves that.

[THBatMan8]

Duke, on Oct 27 2010, 05:28 PM, said:

Don't worry folks, you still live in the "home of the free"

Keep telling yourselves that.

We are compared to most countries in the world. The problem most Americans have is that they misinterpret the constitution. They read a title but don't read the subsequent articles which describe the meaning of the title. For example, the 1st amendment doesn't imply that you can say whatever whenever you want. That was never the purpose behind it.

Edited by Water_Boy, 27 October 2010 - 04:31 PM.

[FL050]

Duke, on Oct 27 2010, 04:28 PM, said:

Don't worry folks, you still live in the "home of the free"

Keep telling yourselves that.

Kinda hard to say that when we don't know what actually happened, eh?

[LA_PHX]

Duke, on Oct 27 2010, 02:28 PM, said:

Don't worry folks, you still live in the "home of the free"

Keep telling yourselves that.

I will.  Considering no country, people, etc. can be entirely free and still civilized, I'd say the U.S. does a good job of it compared to many.

[Mohammad]

It always happens in threes. Haven't they learned that already?

[pyruvate]

Mohammad, on Oct 28 2010, 06:11 AM, said:

It always happens in threes. Haven't they learned that already?

Oh god!

[Janu]

Mohammad, on Oct 28 2010, 01:41 AM, said:

It always happens in threes. Haven't they learned that already?

[Prancer]

Water_Boy, on Oct 27 2010, 04:31 PM, said:

We are compared to most countries in the world. The problem most Americans have is that they misinterpret the constitution. They read a title but don't read the subsequent articles which describe the meaning of the title. For example, the 1st amendment doesn't imply that you can say whatever whenever you want. That was never the purpose behind it.

Yep, and people also keep saying the 1st amendment promises separation between church and state. It in fact says no such thing, just that the state will not mandate a specific religion "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (like the crown setting the church of england as the official church and giving heck to those who didn't join, to the point they came across the sea.) The whole 'separation between church and state' concept didn't come about until the last years of the 1800s and the 1940s by certain justices of the courts.

Kind of scary how people claim to be constitutional experts but don't actually read it.

Edited by hgtkifhieoplwoji, 28 October 2010 - 06:28 AM.

[Alaska_MD-83]

Patriot act gave the gov the right to detain with much more lax reasons than before. It's perfectly legal.

hgtkifhieoplwoji, on Oct 28 2010, 04:23 AM, said:

Yep, and people also keep saying the 1st amendment promises separation between church and state. It in fact says no such thing, just that the state will not mandate a specific religion "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." (like the crown setting the church of england as the official church and giving heck to those who didn't join, to the point they came across the sea.) The whole 'separation between church and state' concept didn't come about until the last years of the 1800s and the 1940s by certain justices of the courts.

Kind of scary how people claim to be constitutional experts but don't actually read it.

You are easily the stupidest hypocrite I have ever seen.

Quote

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Read that. In your own stupid post. If congress shall not make a law respecting a certain religion, that would include creating a state religion/having the state endorse a religion. And no, the Separation of Church and state originated with John Locke (Jefferson pretty much paraphrased him in the Deceleration of Independence). Of course, you probably don't know who John Locke is, nonetheless any of his ideas, or his influence on the country's ideas.  

Also, go read Article 6 of the constitution. It might be of some use to you too. (In terms you might or might not understand; If you are not needed to pass a religion test to hold a government job, then that implies that the gov does not have religion endorsed in it.

Go FSW!!!!!

Edited by Alaska_MD-83, 28 October 2010 - 11:25 AM.

[Prancer]

Quote

The concept of separation of church and state refers to the distance in the relationship between organized religion and the nation state. The term is an offshoot of the original phrase, "wall of separation between church and state," as written in Thomas Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists Association in 1802. Jefferson was responding to a letter that the Association had written him. In that letter, they expressed their concerns about the Constitution not reaching the State level. The Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution did not yet exist, thus leaving the States vulnerable to federal legislation. In Jefferson's letter, he was reassuring the Baptists of Danbury that their religious freedom would remain protected - a promise that no possible religious majority would be able to force out a state's official church. The original text reads: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. The phrase itself does not appear in the U.S. Constitution. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Read up on your history, boy.

[Alaska_MD-83]

I can quote Wikipedia too. But please, respond to the rest of my post first.

Did I mention John Locke?

Edited by Alaska_MD-83, 28 October 2010 - 01:31 PM.

[THBatMan8]

Alaska_MD-83, on Oct 28 2010, 02:31 PM, said:

But please, respond to the rest of my post first.

Don't even bother.  

[Prancer]

Alaska_MD-83, on Oct 28 2010, 01:31 PM, said:

I can quote Wikipedia too. But please, respond to the rest of my post first.

Did I mention John Locke?

If you want me to respond to your post, you need to act nicer, and not like an enraged, hysterical behind.