Right. Well committing a crime is a reason to be locked up. Not committing a crime (as in this case) is not a reason to be locked up.

You're creating a false equivalency. In your previous post you advocated for locking someone up in this scenario, and then giving them due process at some point afterwards. That, to me, is insane.

If roughly 66% of police do not have a college degree, how can one be in favor of allowing them to make a psychological determination to take away your freedom when no crime was committed?

This post was edited on 2/17/21 at 11:49 am

1 ...

Report Post

Posted by GeauxFightingTigers1

Member since Oct 2016

12574 posts

Posted on 2/17/21 at 12:10 pm to Abraham H Parnassis

quote:
Not committing a crime (as in this case) is not a reason to be locked up.

In this particular case, he went voluntarily.... at least my reasoning.

quote:
You're creating a false equivalency.

Obviously I am not as I said he didn't commit a crime.

quote:
In your previous post you advocated for locking someone up in this scenario, and then giving them due process at some point afterwards.

Actually, that is exactly how real quarantine laws work. A person from the State health agency makes a determination.... they can issue agency orders. If those orders are not complied with, they can get a court order.

quote:
psychological determination

Well, agree but it depends on State law. But in this case the determination is irrelevant as the guy wasn't ordered to do anything.

What you are saying doesn't appear to have happened in this case.

Is it possible a State gives a LEO the ability to make that determination, I don't legally see why not though. Is it smart policy, maybe not.

Legally, I just don't see the beef in this instance... different situation and I might not say the same thing.

He could have avoided all this by not speaking with the police.

This post was edited on 2/17/21 at 12:14 pm

1 ...

Report Post

Political Talk - Replies to Post

Return To Board

Page 1

Return To Board