Quote:
Originally posted by Ron Smith
He was, reportedly a very weird and spooky individual who was avoided by many students. Some students upon hearing of the shootings, instantly knew it was Cho.
|
Being wierd and spooky is not a crime and does not meet an objective standard for a 4th amendment intrusion:
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
I could fill a ledger with the names of wierd and spooky people I would like to "check out"... however, their civil rights preclude such action. It is very likely that many members of this forum would be described as "wierd, spooky, armed, and dangerous" by certain family members or neighbors.
I am not criticizing any individual comments. The sole intent of this post is to highlight the relationship of the 1st, 2nd, and 4th ammendments.
When discussing this issue, it is best to keep a wide perspective. In VT case, a 4th ammendment intrusion by the government on Cho may have prevented his 4th ammendment intrusion on his victims.
It is a very slippery slope.
Jack
P.S. My
opinion on the matter is that Americans across the board need to take their safety as an increasingly
personal responsibility, as opposed to relying on the government for security.