Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: TV coverage roundup (what there was of it)
Next Post: Question of the day
Posted in:
* The Blagojevich administration is looking more and more like the Bush administration every day…
When the Illinois Gaming Board first proposed checking IDs of patrons to keep problem gamblers out of casinos, the Illinois casino industry objected with high-minded concerns that police might start looking for more than just problem gamblers.
Anti-gambling advocates guffawed at the objection, calling the possibility far-fetched.
Turns out, the gambling industry was right.
The Illinois State Police and gambling board acknowledged this week that in addition to checking gamblers for being on the casino self-exclusion list, they also are “randomly” checking patrons for outstanding criminal warrants and for being unregistered sex offenders.
And they’ve been quietly doing it for some time — unbeknown even to the Illinois Gaming Board chairman himself.
The police won’t say how “random” their search is, but every time you walk into a casino you’re exposing yourself to police scrutiny - without any legal basis.
Nobody wants to be put into the position of defending unregistered sex offenders, but imagine if you forgot to pay a speeding ticket and all of a sudden you find yourself being escorted out of the casino.
This has to stop. If the General Assembly wants to give the police the authority to do this, fine. But until then, citizens shouldn’t be subjected to police background checks just because they want to pump a few bucks into a slot machine.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:10 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: TV coverage roundup (what there was of it)
Next Post: Question of the day
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
What no DNA test before you can enter a casino?
For somthing that earns the State a substantial amount of revenue; and which many appear intent on using to build the back of the State Capitol Plan, we sure take a lot of steps to make out casinos as little utilized as possible. From secret police checks to banning smoking we are determined to kill our cash cow.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:20 am
I don’t have a problem with the checks, but the person should have the right to know he/she may be checked. It’s not much different then random stops at 4 ways by police. And then there is the ‘let’s fingerprint children’ for lunch cards.
Comment by Princeville Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:24 am
Its not a random stop, they are checking everyon e who is using a public establishment…. Where do you draw the line? ID checks at every Mall and Restraunt. Orwell would be proud
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:39 am
The 4th Amendment means nothing in Illinois, as evidenced by this and the abhorrent police “safety check points.”
Comment by Gene Parmesan Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:43 am
I suppose, Ghost, my line of thinking comes from the fact my daughter-in comes from Russia who could tell you truths of a real police state. Even if these checks go into place all it will do is keep the ‘wanted’ out or chance being ‘caught’. You’re not giving up your freedom, you don’t have to enter the establishment. I agree that I don’t want policed within an inch of my life so to say, but what I don’t think being carded at a door if one knows he/she may be is totally out of bounds.
Comment by Princeville Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:49 am
Being “carded” at an establishment with age limits is one thing. When the police then take that card and run you through a background check without your permission or awareness, that’s quite another.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:53 am
Gotta love that Larry Trent Posse!
After they get the names they send them to DiceK & Wymamontana for a fundraising letter
Sweeeeeet!
Comment by DumberThanYouThink Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 10:57 am
Correct, Rich, and as you said in opening story, if they are going to do this (continue to do this) then the GA has to sign off on it and set up the rules to oversee the issue. I don’t mean to imply that I think the secret method should be allowed that is a total infringement of rights
Comment by Princeville Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:02 am
When it comes to attracting out of state and foreign gamblers to Illinois casinos this State really stinks. First we place the boats in locations that only attract Illinois residents, then we ban smoking and now we are doing secret criminal background checks.
The stampede to Indiana, Iowa and Wisconsin is starting to feel like an earthquake. Are Illinois elected officials really this arrogant to think that customers won’t travel elsewhere? I give it a year before they are crying poor because of stupid decisions.
Comment by Garp Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:04 am
Why not draw the line at the fact that it is “public!”
Why should a sex offender OR an absent-minded speeder have the expectation of privacy in a public place?
This smacks of the tempest in a teapot when the fancy face recognition cameras caught 2-3 felons at a Super Bowl.
Why should felons feel safe at a Superbowl or a Casino?
I do see the danger that hyper-technology presents to a free society, but the instrumentality that apprehends criminals is far less important than the process by which crimes are defined.
They growing “arbitrary and capricious” nature of selective enforcement (at all levels of government) is a far more dangerous trend than casino cameras apprehending speeders or felons.
Comment by Bruno Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:05 am
Why do I care if someone does a background check on me ? Go for it. What’s the big deal unless you broke a law. It doesn’t hurt me one bit and in fact makes me safer. If I have an outstanding ticket or committed some other crime then I deserve to be arrested.
Comment by So... Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:05 am
Amen to that. In our post 9/11 desire for “security,” this country has been all too willing to submit to “random and routine” — not to mention unwarranted (in every sense of the word) and unlawful police powers.
Let’s hear it for probable cause and the 4th Amendment. As Ben Franklin said “Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.”
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:10 am
high-minded concerns that police might start looking for more than just problem gamblers
Now, what’s wrong with common sense background checks?
In fact, they could use those things to limit gambling to say one visit a week? Why would anyone need to gamble more than that?
In fact, we might want to have background checks BEFORE people board the boat, so that compulsive gamblers are not allowed on board.
Most gamblers are responsible, but inadequate background checks mean that compulsive gamblers can end up easily on board. For the safety of families, individuals, and students in Illinois, we must enact sensible gambling access laws.
Comment by Pat collins Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:19 am
Wow, so many comments happily submitting to government intrusion into our lives - for your own good, of course. Gun owners have worried about abuse of government power for a long time. So have civil rights activists.
Police stops that catch every driver on a road during the time of the stops are ostensibly about DUIs, but look at the record. Less than 3% of tickets are for DUIs, but the fines make Cities and Villages money so the drunk driving enforcement covers them. We’re just doing it for you.
I wish we could go back to the olden days, when liberals worried about civil rights & conservatives were for small government. As it is you have a guys against name checking casino patrons, while gun registration is OK?
Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany did not start out as police states. They were grown that way - for the people’s own good, of course.
America is fast becoming a nanny state, which is the PC way of saying a police state. People emigrated to America to find freedom. When we lose it here, where will we go?
Comment by Old School Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:22 am
The logic of I am not a criminal so groundless search and seizure is ok means we are agreeing that govewrnment can do whatever it wants if it catches a criminal. The problem is govt also tells us what is a criminal acitvity. Looks back at Germany, ever wonder how Hitler and the SS were able to take over and persecute their victims? Simple, they said I am not a jew/gypsy/gay so it does not effect me.
Our whole consitution sprang from our experience with the King of England and a Govt that was free to act without cause. We created our republic and went back and added in the bill of right to protect our citizens from potential govt abuse. One of the demands we made is that the Govt may act to search us only with probable cause to beleive we have engaged in a crime. This conduct of searching everyone without probable cause to see if we can find a crime should strike fear into everyone.
That RUssia is a worse place to live does not mean we should tolerate something slightly less. How about we go with our own constitution? How about if the police come to your house and check all your computers and CD’s to make sure you have copyright permissions for all your music/movies etc. They would not need any basis to beleive you have done wrong, but since they are only searching for criminal acitvity is it not ok for the police to stop by and sweep your home to see what they can find?
The other argument about not going out in public if you do not want tobe subject to police investiagtion without cause implies we must all cower in our homes. How about if your walking donw the street and the police decide to check your briefcase, wallet, pockets, take some hair and fiber samples, search your car, your out in public and if your not a criminal then these searches hoping to find evidnece of a crime should be fine.
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:45 am
Big difference between conducting “background checks” and discovering a valid arrest warrant. Arrest warrants have been hooked onto driver’s license and vehicle registration files for a long time. That’s how cops run names or license plates in traffic and discover bad things, wanted people/owner, etc. What expectation of privacy is there in a public place like a street or casino anyhow? [Is the casino itself state-owned or owned by the license-holder??].
If you’re going to throw some quarters into a slot, wouldn’t you like to know that the person standing next to you is a deported felon, wanted for homicide? If the casino does Not screen customers, they are holding a large bag if something goes wrong…. they have the responsibility to provide a SAFE environment for all of the patrons.
Now if ISP wants to start tattooing social security #s on everyone’s forehead…..
Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:54 am
I don’t see a problem with police background checks at casinos or any other public facility. I see a big distinction between a background check (which is a bit of a misnomer, all they’re doing is seeing if you are wanted by police for something) and an unreasonable search and seizure. After all, if the casino worker knows of his own memory that a guy is wanted and informs the police he’s there, you wouldn’t complain right? So what’s wrong with checking a computer to see if someone’s wanted?
I also don’t have a problem with DUI checkpoints. People say they catch other folk. Yes, folk with outstanding warrants, unpaid tickets, damaged or burnt out lights, people making stupid driving decisions and people violating the traffic laws. If you don’t want to get a ticket, drive within the speed limit, signal before you turn or change lanes, wear your seat belt and ensure your passengers do too, etc. And pay your fine when you do get cited.
Comment by cermak_rd Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:54 am
These checks are far from consistent. Harrah’s in Joliet will generally stop you, check your ID, and make you stand in front of a camera, ONLY if you hesitate at the security checkpoint and show any sign of reluctance. I have learned that if you have their “Total Rewards” card out, in your hand, and if they see it, they generally will not stop you.
Comment by Squideshi Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 12:05 pm
VM – Who me?
Police – Mr. VanillaMan? Will you please come with us?
VM – HUH? What’s the problem? Listen, my wife and I were just getting some fresh air and enjoying the river view at night. There was no one around – we’re married, you know? We got lots of kids at home and we’re alone. Let me put my shirt back on, OK? This is a little embarrassing! We’ll leave if you want us to - sorry! I’ll be right back honey!
Police – Watch your step, sir. When we checked your ID, our security system had your name flagged. Is your address 2934 West Sunnyside in Chicago?
VM – No, I live in Illinois.
Police – Ever lived at that address?
VM – No. But I hear the property tax there is a real steal.
Police – Listen. The guy who lives at this address is in a world of legal hurt. We have a number of incidents pertaining to the individual living at this address. Our system flagged your name as the guy living there and named as Public Official A. Therefore, we consider you a security risk and must ask you to leave immediately.
VM - This is nuts! Who sent you to find me? Who flagged my name?
Police – If you have any further questions Mr. VanillaMan, I recommend you take them up with that gentlemen sitting at the end of that blackjack table.
VM – HEY! That’s Chris Kelly! Ha! I guess I’m not the only one losing a shirt around here!
Police – Please leave now, sir.
VM – I’d call you a Nazi, but I know that Germans have laws against stuff like this and wouldn’t stoop this low!
Police – Tell it to Mr. Kelly, sir. He is our gaming expert.
VM - Only to the guy living at 2934 West Sunnyside.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 12:11 pm
A casino is private property that is beholden to regulations, but it is private property. Many laugh at those who point out slippery slopes as conspiracy nuts, but that is exactly what has happened here.
They may not be looking for you now, but if the time comes, the mechanisms will be in place.
Comment by Fan of the Game Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 12:30 pm
Ghost, we’re not going to agree on this. To me, you’re sounding like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling. While I understand where your concerns lie, no one is calling for search and seizure at the doors or especially in our homes. Last I knew there where laws against illegal search and seizure and no one is calling to repeal them. I pick plenty of bandwagons to jump on but doing a quick check on a person entering a casino does not happen to be one of them. They ask you if you’re a deadbeat parent on job applications and to get a fishing license. A violation of my privacy? An infrigement of my right to walk around as a deadbeat and not be caught and held accountable? Anyone seeks to start checking my grocery bag in the parking lot or beating on the door to take a look-see, then I’ll join the wagon. I’m not willing to give up my rights and my freedom, but I try to put into preception as to what counts and what doesn’t. What’s wrong to me here is the secret doings, pass the law and id me as to it.
Comment by Princeville Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 12:42 pm
If it is strictly a warrant check, I would not describe that as a “background check”. Is there a right to keep outstanding warrants private from the police? I think not. Somehow I don’t think they are all that worried about people who forgot to pay a speeding ticket. I’ll wager, (no pun intended), some violent offenders have been arrested at the casinos and taken off the street. It is my understanding that the casinos are an excellent way for criminals to launder drug proceeds and the like. I wonder if the warrant checks are related to that issue. I am sorry, but I’m not shocked, outraged or bothered at all by this. I see no constitutional infringement here. It doesn’t even seem like a close call. I tire of the “Orwell” and “police state” comments. And I scoff at the idea that we are settling for “slightly less” than a Russian police state. That comment is inflammatory and is made by a person who obviously knows nothing of Russia. That being said, the commander of the ISP Riverboat Gambling details is Luis Tigera. If you want to question someones judgement, he would be the man responsible for this “great injustice”.
Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 1:03 pm
Let’s get some perspective, people.
First off, they aren’t checking to see if you unpaid parking tickets. They are checking to see if you have any outstanding criminal warrants and or are an unregistered sex offender. In other words: are you someone from whom they are worn to protecting the public?
Second, is it a violation of your rights to have a cop or security guard “secretly” compare your face to an APB or “Wanted” poster? No. So why would it be a violation of your rights to have a cop or security guard compare the information on your ID, which you are already required to present in order to verify your age, with a computerized database of wanted criminals and sex offenders?
Comment by grand old partisan Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 1:25 pm
can’t a convicted sex offender go to a casino? Is it because our child like legislators go there?
Comment by Why Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 1:35 pm
When people think about the sex offender registry, they think of child sex offenders. Don’t forget that offenders that committed violent sex offenses against adults are also included. Me and my 85 year old grandmother who likes to play blackjack don’t mind this “abhorrant intrusion”. Nor do we mind that the guy wanted on a robbery warrant won’t follow her out of the casino into the parking lot after he just lost his shirt.
Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 1:38 pm
I can’t believe anyone defending this practice. If law enforcement believed it was right….why keep it a secret? These guys write their own rules. Hey ACLU…..what about it.
Comment by downhereforyears Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 1:54 pm
Personal freedoms in this state and country are disappearing faster than honesty in State government. Our kids fighting and dying for democracy and freedom in Iraq, and we give them up in this country without a whimper.
Comment by downstate hack Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 1:56 pm
I am really getting weirded out by the comments supporting these criminal background checks. Why on earth should it be okay to run a check at a casino and not at Jewel or Walgreens or anywhere else the public goes? What a dangerous precedent.
And for all you folks who say, if you haven’t done anything wrong, what do you have to worry about? I say, what if your kid with the same name did something wrong? What if your x-wife ran through too many pay tolls on your dime without your knowledge? What if your driver’s license is suspended for emissions for a car you sold and didn’t know it? What if you beat a ticket in court but the clerk failed to document it properly and a warrant was issued in error?
Our great government constantly makes mistakes and the issues get worked administratively through the courts act. People are notified by US mail, served summons or subpoena. They show up to court with their lawyer and resolve the matter. They don’t need to be dragged kicking and screaming out of a casino.
Come on people, protect your rights.
Comment by Garp Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 2:07 pm
“Down here,” why do police departments keep sting operations secret? Perhaps because they would lose their effectiveness in catching criminals if they were announced ahead of time? Should the police start announcing sting operations in advance too?
I do think “Freezeup” raises a good point. Are these really “background checks” or simply checks for outstanding arrest warrants which are already part of one’s driver’s license record?
The term “background check” implies that police are scrutinizing your entire record of past offenses including petty or traffic offenses — which would be a gross invasion of privacy under these circumstances (i.e. entering a casino). That does not seem to be the case here. All they are doing, if I understand correctly, is checking for CURRENT outstanding warrants.
Perhaps this policy is also a tacit recognition of the fact that casinos do attract some less than savory characters at times.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 2:23 pm
Freezeup, you sound pretty close and kwowleagle about this situation. Do tell all.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 2:42 pm
Any intelligent crook would rob the gambler on the way TO the casino, not after they have been fleeced by the casino. Just look at the odds.
Comment by A Citizen Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 2:48 pm
Precedent - that is the key here. Government takes inch by inch. If it works so well, why not do it in every public place all the time. Make it impossible for criminals to even live in Illinois. Isn’t that Daley’s goal - cameras for every location in public. What is the result? Look at London. Crimes not solved at any better rate and violent crimes moving indoors where people are off-camera and unarmed.
Sadly, there are those who defend these “reasonable” intrusions, but government never stops there does it? It is always back for more. Remember the original seat belt law? There wasn’t one. Most of us rode in the front seat without a belt. Then belts were mandatory, but we couldn’t get 100% compliance so now we stop you just for a seat belt violation. That is the typical road with government intrusion by law and force.
Of course, it is for your own good. Fred Thompson, the alleged conservative candidate, recently remarked that government exists to keep us safe. Wow, I thought American government as constituted by the Founders existed to preserve individual liberty. Not keep me and you safe from all harm.
Like all government efforts this one will continue to creep into our lives. Like “So…” expressed, we have nothing to hide - come on in government. Private property as a fundamental concept of liberty is being lost. I hate smoking, but nannyism is a terrible threat to liberty. It represents a loss of inividual liberty, the right to be left alone and not have government looking over your shoulder, collecting data on you and using the force of law to make you into what they want. We, who want government out of our lives and off our backs, are considered wackos and conspiracy nuts?
Liberty is fleeting and worth fighting for. Let history be your guide.
Comment by Old School Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 4:06 pm
Garp,
“I say, what if your kid with the same name did something wrong?”
Not an issue unless he/she has the same date of birth, SS#, physical descriptors as you. Discipline him/her.
“What if your x-wife ran through too many pay tolls on your dime without your knowledge?”
Tollway contacts registered owner via mail 1st, then certified mail. If it still needs to be cleaned up, registration plates & DL suspended.
“What if your driver’s license is suspended for emissions for a car you sold and didn’t know it?”
If you’re in a casino, non-issue [you’re on foot remember?] If you’re driving down a street, car gets towed + you go to jail unless cops verify w/SOS
“What if you beat a ticket in court but the clerk failed to document it properly and a warrant was issued in error?”
On foot in casino? It’ll get discovered & dealt with [if within geographic limits, jail].
Driving on the street and cop runs your plate? Your car gets towed & you go to jail.
Arrest warrants means that a judge decreed that you are to be snatched up and taken before the judge, right then & there.
“Background checks” are thorough investigations that looks at everything one has done/ been etc.
“Warrant checks” are instant scans through local/state/national databases looking for matches. Painless & takes 5 - 10 seconds, unless you have something bad lurking in there.
Comment by North of I-80 Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 4:08 pm
Old School hits it right on the mark! Incremental intrusions.
Back in the 70’s-80’s my father was a county sheriff. He would not set up road blocks because he felt they were unconstitutional.
These intrusions are problematic not only because they intrude on our rights, but also because they they take cops off the beat and encourage lazy police work. Why look for the bad guys when they might show up at a roadblock or on camera sooner or later? A good cop, willing to do the leg and brain work has probable cause on their side AND knows the community and can ID a bad actor quickly after a crime. A check point monitor just hopes to get lucky.
Check points and the like make me feel less safe
Comment by Pot calling kettle Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 4:47 pm
When you apply for; or seek renewal of your privilege (driving) or professional (doctor,lawyer, dentist, beautician, etc. licenses) I believe they check you against a database of those owing child support, or state income or other taxes.
I wish they would hold them until law enforcement would arrive to arrange for payment of the amounts due before they are released. In the event this is mplausible, they should at least confscate any winings, until all debts are settled.
Comment by Dead Beat Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 5:03 pm
Who is paying for the police to do these background checks? Is it the local police department? Private security hired by the casino? If so, what is their authority to search police databases?
What right does the police have to a security check if I am entering a private place of business?
Comment by Huh? Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 5:16 pm
For those who do not know, state police are assigned to each riverboat casino. I believe the state is reimbursed for their salary by the riverboat gaming board. The mission, among other things is to keep the games honest for both patron and gaming operator. It would be their responsibility to investigate wrong doing on either side. They also do back ground investigations on riverboat employees. I am not sure where the warrant checks or investigations regarding money laundering fit into that, but it does not surprise me that police occasionally encounter criminals in casinos.
I guess some were unaware that while this is private business, it is state sanctioned and regulated, thus the ISP involvement.
That’s about all I know about it that seems relevant to the discussion. I am a police officer but not involved in the boats so I am far from an expert.
Rich, an idea for a “Question Of The Day” may be “What stereotypical comparison do people make about your profession that really annoys you”. After 20 years as a cop and having met some very fine police officers with many admirable characteristics, (and yes, a few boneheads), I have met very few jack-booted thugs bent on creating a police state with Gestapo tactics parallel to Orwell’s “1984″ while forcefully pushing people down the increasingly slippery slope to a constition-less monarchy.
Comment by Freezeup Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 6:22 pm
It’s so creepy to see so many fellow citizens completely comfortable with giving up their rights. How does the old saying go- “First they came for the communists, and I did not object because I am not a communist”? There’s always a justification for the authorities crossing the line. Next it’s “Show us your papers” at the movie theater, or the grocery store. Freedom is stolen bit by bit and it’s so disappointing to see people happily kiss it goodbye.
Comment by DuPage Dave Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 6:51 pm
It’s all about cooking the stats. The ISP could give a darn about problem gamblers.
However, given the opportunity to check thousands of licenses, they couldn’t pass up the chance. It will increase the number of arrests at the boats and make the ISP look good.
What an enterprising journalist should do is:
1. Find out exactly when the ISP started checking DL’s against warrants. The IGB has been grabbing people on warrants for years. Long before they started looking for degenerate gablers.
2. Ask who benefits? The ISP. It’s really about cooking stats. All that “for public safety” is cover to make themselves look better.
Comment by No name today Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 7:52 pm
I think I’ll sleep pretty easy tonite. The Chairman of the Gaming Board is about as fine a civil libertarian as I have ever known. If he thinks it’s OK, I’m OK. If he doesn’t think it’s OK, he’ll make it stop.
Comment by steve schnorf Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 9:08 pm
the poster at 7;52 is correct this is only done to just make someone look good. Just the tip of the iceberg. they have been doing this for years at the Peoria boat. what someone should do is requset the stats on arrest from these boats through the FOIA and see if there is a patern of racial profiling on who is getting their DL run and those being arrested. could be interesting
Comment by slamming sammy Thursday, Jan 3, 08 @ 11:01 pm
Every source I can find shows a TOTAL of 940 VOTES for Obama! So, all this hoopla over 940 rubes voting for him? I mean, we have small suburbs with FAR more voters than that. Sadly, this “win” will sway a lot of votes. Absolute silliness.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 12:40 am
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/files/elections/2008/by_state/US_Page_0103_VD.html?SITE=ILCHTELN&SECTION=POLITICS
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 1:52 am
Dead Beat, read what you just wrote. It is not a right to travel to your next door neighbor or shop or move between cities and state in America. It is now a “privilege” granted by government.
It is not a right to work in the job of you choice. It is a privilege allowed by government. These two issues alone, the right to travel freely and the right to work should set off alarm bells in everyone. Look at how far we have fallen.
Remember the young black women trying to better themselves by braiding hair? No barber license, no work or so says the government. Yikes! This is the land of the free, the home of the brave? Get your nose out of the dirt and stop kowtowing. You cannot travel freely anymore without willingly submitting to government search and seizure. That doesn’t make you nervous? I mean because the stop is random it makes it right? I guess the roads are public property - so you lose your rights.
Freezeup, your comment is without merit. I like cops. My friends and family are police officers (beat cops, sargeants and chiefs) but cops have to follow the law. If you break the law and they witness it, they will arrest you - family or no. The problem is their bosses the politicians have agendas much different than the average cops (see street cops v. chief of police on gun control for instance). They are good people, but they enforce the law as written. They have incentives to do so. If we accept bad laws as a people our cops are not going to rescue us from them. They will do their job, follow the rules and get paid, just like anyone else, no better or worse.
Comment by Old School Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 6:35 am
psst, Snidely, that’s not a total of 940 votes by the people. Your link showed a ‘no page’, so could not see it, but the Democrat and Repulican votes are done differently in Iowa. Huckabee votes you see are actual ‘ballot’ so to say votes, Obama’s are not.
Comment by Princeville Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 6:41 am
Prince, so you’re saying that it’s the number of individual caucuses he won within the state? OK, that can make sense. Thanks for the information. Man, I thought Illinois was a screwed-up state.
Comment by Snidely Whiplash Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 7:59 am
I guess it is OK now to just throw out the 4th Amendment! 2nd has been under attack for decades, soon will be the 1st!
Comment by Rebel13 Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 8:53 am
Snidley, no that’s not what I meant, but instead, say Obama got 200 people on his side, he gets 4 delegates. The 940 you see is delegates. 239,000 Democrats lined this year. It’s not as silly to them as it seems to us who just stand waiting to vote, click our vote and get a bitty sticker saying we voted. Actually some the smaller rural areas have a good ol’ time at it. They social, discuss, hear a bit of party business, fill their faces with homemade pies and sandwiches and then line up for their choice.
Comment by Princeville Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 9:08 am
Old School, It’s all good that you like cops. The problem is that people throw these terms out all too easily. Frankly I think most people who throw those terms out are quickly dismissed but it still bothers me.
Think about the crimes against humanity that the Gestapo, the KGB the GRB comitted and what it REALLY means to live in a police state with gulags for those who disagree and maybe you can begin to understand why I get tired of hearing it. Do you think your friends and family who are cops like to be compared to a group of men that rounded men women and children up and packed them into train cars to be worked and gassed to death?
I took an oath to uphold the Constitution. I am a minor league student of the Constitution but I still think me and the people I work with and even my oft criticised agency do a pretty darned good job of enforcing the law without trampling individuals.
Cops are going to try to find criminals wherever they work. If you don’t like that idea, maybe cops should not be on the riverboats. I am sure that if the ISP was replaced on the boats, those men and women could be put to good use elsewhere.
Comment by Freezeup Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 3:46 pm
Freezeup, let me apologize if anything I said sounded rude or anti-cop. Let me give you an example from my real life about cops and the Constitution. A decade ago I owned a building in a rough neighborhood on the ss. At about 1 AM we had a break in and I went down there armed. No guns allowed in Chicago, but cops can tell good guys from bad guys. A lone cop drives up (older guy - carrying a .38 with walnut grips). I tell him I am armed and he says watch the front. He goes in and confronts the guy who jumps out the window and disappears in the night. We talk for a while and dispatch calls him asking when he will arrive. They did not know where he was and he said luckily he had back up - the knuckleheads.
Two weeks later the same thing happens. Two cops show up - man and a woman (late twenties/early thirties). I introduce myself as the owner and tell them I am armed, without batting and eye she starts to arrest me, no longer interested in the B&E. Her partner pulls her aside, they talk, and she never mentions anything. They go inside and all is well.
You likely know better, but would todays average cop arrest a law-abiding armed citizen because he was violating a law that violates the Constitution in the interest of preserving his life?
BTW I sold that building.
Comment by Old School Friday, Jan 4, 08 @ 7:51 pm