Debates
27 Apr 08
27 Apr 08
1 edit
New York Judge Acquits Detectives in Controversial Shooting
By Barbara Schoetzau
New York
25 April 2008
Sean Bell died in a hail of bullets in the early hours of November 25, 2006 as he left his bachelor party at a run-down nightclub in the city. Two of Bell's companions were injured. Some 50 bullets were fired by undercover police detectives investigating prostitution. One detective fired 31 shots.
http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-04-25-voa54.cfm
If I understand this case, Mr. Bell (and the club he was at) was being investigated for things like weapon possession, prostitution, gambling and drugs. Is this a case of an authoritarian government oppressing the people for exercising their inalienable rights to bear arms and pursue happiness?
This is not about the shooting itself, but rather the investigation.
28 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by leepoundWhy? As you can probably tell from my post, I am arguing the opposite. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence DO acknowledge those inalienable rights.
The answer to your question is no. I think this case is clearly just a case in whether the police were or were not justified in using force.
28 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThis goes back to your concept that you can ignore the laws society has passed when they don't fit in with the way you see the world. There are laws in NYC about carrying guns, or illegal drug use and certainly prositiution...remember the recent case of Governor Spitzer?
Why? As you can probably tell from my post, I am arguing the opposite. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence DO acknowledge those inalienable rights.
Society has passed these laws to maintain order.... or if you want to take it out of the Constituion ..to ensure domestic tranquility.
So until you can get enough like minded individuals into the political system to change the laws... stop whining. Do you think you have the right to drive any speed you wish on California roads.... after all aren't speed limits actually limits by an authoritarian government to deny you your Constitutional right to the pursuit of happiness .... if driving 150 through the neighborhood is what floats your boat
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by AThousandYoungThat whole "investigation" and the inexplicable judegement of not guilty really chafes my willy. How can 50 shots at an unarmed man EVER be justified?
[i]New York Judge Acquits Detectives in Controversial Shooting
By Barbara Schoetzau
New York
25 April 2008
Sean Bell died in a hail of bullets in the early hours of November 25, 2006 as he left his bachelor party at a run-down nightclub in the city. Two of Bell's companions were injured. Some 50 bullets were fired by undercover police detectiv ...[text shortened]... s and pursue happiness?
This is not about the shooting itself, but rather the investigation.
29 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by SMSBear716Society passed laws in which black people were property.
This goes back to your concept that you can ignore the laws society has passed when they don't fit in with the way you see the world. There are laws in NYC about carrying guns, or illegal drug use and certainly prositiution...remember the recent case of Governor Spitzer?
Society has passed these laws to maintain order.... or if you want to take it out the pursuit of happiness .... if driving 150 through the neighborhood is what floats your boat
I'm not whining. I'm offering something to Debate. What's your problem with that?
Do you think you have the right to drive any speed you wish on California roads
Those roads aren't my property, so no. In addition it would endanger others' lives.
29 Apr 08
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLet us for a moment suppose that the police in question enjoy shooting unarmed civilians. Then doesn't your argument also allow them to bear arms and pursue happiness?
Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration.
I am sure that your constitution somewhere has a clause that says that said pursuit of happiness should not come at the expense of someone else's happiness.
I would further argue that your right to bear arms is a direct threat to my pursuit of happiness thus showing up an incoherency in your constitution.
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadA "direct threat to my pursuit of happiness"?? Talk about incoherency.
Let us for a moment suppose that the police in question enjoy shooting unarmed civilians. Then doesn't your argument also allow them to bear arms and pursue happiness?
I am sure that your constitution somewhere has a clause that says that said pursuit of happiness should not come at the expense of someone else's happiness.
I would further argue that y ...[text shortened]... direct threat to my pursuit of happiness thus showing up an incoherency in your constitution.
29 Apr 08
Originally posted by twhiteheadLet us for a moment suppose that the police in question enjoy shooting unarmed civilians. Then doesn't your argument also allow them to bear arms and pursue happiness?
Let us for a moment suppose that the police in question enjoy shooting unarmed civilians. Then doesn't your argument also allow them to bear arms and pursue happiness?
I am sure that your constitution somewhere has a clause that says that said pursuit of happiness should not come at the expense of someone else's happiness.
I would further argue that y ...[text shortened]... direct threat to my pursuit of happiness thus showing up an incoherency in your constitution.
People have a Right to Life which such an act would violate.
30 Apr 08
2 edits
Originally posted by AThousandYoung230 years ago, in 1776, the word "happiness" had a meaning - the one the authors of the Declaration intended, it would seem - that is obsolete now: namely, 'material wealth, comfort, security, shelter, absence of hardship etc.' and not an emotional state, as such. The meaning of Pursuit of Happiness therefore enjoys only a very tenuous connection to the idea of a Pursuit of Enjoyment.
Pursuit of Happiness in the Declaration.
Anybody know more about this? I've read about this piece of etymological information in various places but can't lay hands on the book right this minute.
edit:
Justice Earl Warren wrote in 1967: "The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men." Now if I am right about the etymology, Warren's statement is perhaps actually a misunderstanding of the word (or perhaps an intentional misrepresentation).
in Butchers' Union Co. v. Crescent City Co., 111 U.S. 746 (1884), considered Jefferson's phrase to refer to one's economic vocation of choice rather than the more ephemeral search for emotional fulfillment, although one may be predicated on the other. U.S. Supreme Court Associate Justice Stephen Johnson Field, in his concurring opinion[3] to Associate Justice Samuel Freeman Miller's opinion, wrote:
Among these inalienable rights, as proclaimed in that great document, is the right of men to pursue their happiness, by which is meant the right to pursue any lawful business or vocation, in any manner not inconsistent with the equal rights of others, which may increase their prosperity or develop their faculties, so as to give to them their highest enjoyment.
But by 1884, this "enjoyment" meaning of the word happiness had emerged. This makes the last 9 words "...so as to give to them their highest enjoyment" a wee bit of an anachronistic red herring.
(these snippets found at wikipedia)