RE: How much is that doggie sniffing my car...

[curley@CYPHER.TURBONET.COM]

No, it was not I, nor even my point of view, that I thought elicited 
your  sarcasm, but the "get a grip" response to Ken Gallant's 
original questions about the intent and actual use of the dogs.  And, 
my point was that I have no problem with attacking a point of view 
(assuming that "point of view" is closely akin to position, 
rationale, or arguments), but attacking the person expressing them is 
not necessary or appropriate.

As for the Me generation and backlash, that is a different traffic 
jam for consideration and thoughful debate.  It appears that we can 
agree that any statement, rule, argument, law, or position can be 
expanded to reach the ridiculous.  Logic and common sense do have to 
prevail lest in trying to make every possible personal affront a 
crime we all wake up with only one "script for the day"  that will 
keep us from all possible illegal behavior.  But truly, I have 
trouble with denigrating efforts that have improved the social, 
economic, physical, or phychological lot of millions of our brothers 
and sisters, moms and dads, friends and co-workers the last 35 or 
more years whether because they were gay or lesbian, 
black/African-American, Hispanic, American Indian (or any other 
ethnicity that disqualfied one from being a "good ol' boy"), female, 
physically disabled, effectively disenfranchised, or "different" in 
a way that caused or created an excuse for discrimination against 
them.  It is they who are often poster children for  "Me 
Generation" bashing.  Sure, one can stretch the rules and laws that 
were made to protect them to the point that the original intent is no 
longer apparent and until the thread of rationality breaks, but it 
throws the lean out with the fat to cancel all the protections and 
start over--or to pretend the problem no longer exists.  

From:          "Cooper, Maj Philip S. CCJ1" 
<cooperps@centcom.mil> To:            "'curley@mail.turbonet.com'" 
<curley@mail.turbonet.com>,                'Kenneth Gallant' 
<gallantk@uidaho.edu>, Erikus4@aol.com Cc:            
vision2020@moscow.com Subject:       RE: How much is that doggie 
sniffing my car... Date:          Thu, 19 Nov 1998 12:34:16 -0500

Curley, sorry if you thought I was making a personal attack on your point of
view - that certainly was not my intent. Being politically correct is not
one of my strengths.  A fellow vision2020 colleague recently expressed to me
that we might be witnessing a backlash to the "ME" generation.  While both
he and I concur with the original intent of Affirmative Action and other
related legislation, recent votes and rhetoric lead us to believe there are
people out there who are tired of the "stretching" of these laws and
policies.
He recommended Philip K. Howard's _The Death of Common Sense_?  which
details the absurdities of the USA since Congress began overwriting laws, to
the extent there is no longer any wriggle room for common sense to be a
factor.  Cheers.

PC


	-----Original Message-----
	From:	curley@mail.turbonet.com [SMTP:curley@mail.turbonet.com]
	Sent:	November 19,1998 03:58
	To:	'Kenneth Gallant'; Erikus4@aol.com; Cooper, Maj Philip S.
CCJ1
	Cc:	vision2020@moscow.com
	Subject:	RE: How much is that doggie sniffing my car...

	Let's see if I am following this "logic."  If the police decided 
	that gun violence was a major source of crime and that stopping 
	people on  a public sidewalk for a quick frisk would help reduce
that 
	violence, I shouldn't worry about that if I am not carrying a weapon

	illegally, because I am not "doing anything wrong."  And then, since

	I allow this "minor intrusion" without complaining I can
legitimately 
	"cry" about it when someone gets shot.  In a department store where 
	theft has been a problem, it should be okay with me if the cops 
	walked into any dressing room anytime just to be sure I'm not 
	slipping an extra garment or two into my drawers, sleeves and
pockets 
	--because I'm not doing anything wrong.    Well, you say, those are 
	intrusions into my personal space, different from the dogs 
	sniffing--maybe, maybe not, but the puerile argument that only those

	who are doing something wrong need worry still applies.  
	Suppose instead that to cut crime--and I mean real 
	crimes against persons, not the victimless crime of possession of 
	marijuana (please spare me the statistics and phony 
	arguments about the dangers of m. j. over the "legal" drugs.   I 
	don't use it and never have, but it is far less threat to the safety

	of my family than either alcohol or tobacco)--police decide to use 
	"snoopy" devices to listen in secrecy to personal conversations in 
	PUBLIC places.  Only those who are doing something wrong have 
	anything to fear, right?  The bigger Brother gets, the less we have 
	to fear because we will be approaching a crime-less society I 
	suppose.  And we will be safer because more and more of our
neighbors 
	(certainly it won't be US because we won't ever do anything wrong) 
	will be behind bars for violating the crime-of-the-day, since indeed

	there was a time in our country when you could go to jail for 
	possession of alcoholic beverages with intent to sell, but not for 
	possession of marijuana--or a host of other drugs.
	Please excuse me for lapsing into the same tone of sarcasm you 
	exhibited.  I rose to the bait.  There really isn't any need to 
	attack another person when it's her/his position I disagree with, is

	there?

	Signed,

	Another Shaky Gripper



	From:          "Cooper, Maj Philip S. CCJ1" 
	<cooperps@centcom.mil> To:            "'Kenneth Gallant'" 
	<gallantk@uidaho.edu>, Erikus4@aol.com Cc:            
	vision2020@moscow.com Subject:       RE: How much is that doggie 
	sniffing my car... Date:          Thu, 19 Nov 1998 08:06:18 -0500

	Get a grip.  It's the folks who are doing something wrong that have
the
	worry.  Funny how people cry about  their rights being violated but
when
	something serious occurs, its...."How could you let this happen" and
" Where
	were you"....seems like everyone wants to play the "I'm a victim
routine"
	these days.

	PC

		-----Original Message-----
		From:	Kenneth Gallant [SMTP:gallantk@uidaho.edu]
		Sent:	November 18,1998 19:50
		To:	Erikus4@aol.com
		Cc:	vision2020@moscow.com
		Subject:	Re: How much is that doggie sniffing my
car...

		I would be interested in determining the pattern of cars
that are
		approached, at times when the police officers do not know
that they
	are
		being watched.  It would be interesting to see if older cars
or
	sites at
		which a high percentage of those present are often of
Hispanic
	origin and
		not well off.  Based on my (little) knowledge of the
politics of the
	area,
		I wonder whether this campaign is being targeted  at poor
Hispanic
	people.
		Or the non-wealthy in general.

		I do not recommend keeping any "smell alike" substance in
your
	trunk.  If
		this search program is legal (as I hope it is not but fear
that it
	is), a
		hit on the smell alike substance will not vitiate the
legality of
	the
		search.  And it will mark you as someone the cops want to
continue
	to take
		a look at. 

		Kenneth S. Gallant
		Professor of Law
		University of Idaho
		Moscow, Idaho 83844-2322 USA
		208-885-6541 (phone)
		208-885-4628 (fax)
		gallantk@uidaho.edu

		On Wed, 18 Nov 1998 Erikus4@aol.com wrote:

		>  >    Under the plan, the drug dogs would be able to
search
	anywhere
		>  >the general public is allowed to go. They wouldn't be
able to
		>  >search private property.
		> 
		> Well, thank goodness for that.  Only a semi-police state.
		> 
		> The obvious answer is to find a legal substance that the
dogs will
	hit on, and
		> tell everyone to keep a small quantity in their trunk.
Anyone
	know of such a
		> substance?
		> 
		> And please note that I'm not defending drug users or
dealers.  I
	just hate
		> excessive police tactics that go against everything
American.
		> 
		> E. O'Daniel
		> 

	Mike Curley
	reply to: curley@turbonet.com
	208-882-3536
Mike Curley
reply to: curley@turbonet.com
208-882-3536