Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

theatre goon

(87 posts)
17. It's called due process, as others have pointed out.
Thu Apr 28, 2016, 02:27 PM
Apr 2016

You seem to be like some other folks, that when it comes to your personal bigotries, due process can be ignored.

Y'know, like Donald Trump saying that we should restrict Muslims from coming into the country, even those that have not been convicted of any crime (they might, maybe, someday commit an act of terrorism, donchaknow). Or various Republicans saying that transgendered folks can't use the public restroom of their choice, because some of them, maybe, might have nefarious motives for using that restroom (even though they can't point out any examples of this actually being a problem).

This is exactly the sort of "logic" you are advocating -- it doesn't put you in very good company...

Bigotry is still bigotry, even when it's aimed at a group you don't happen to like.

So, yes, we wait until people commit a real crime before we punish them. That's actually how it's meant to work...

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

the Constitution State like the fifth amendment about as much as the second gejohnston Apr 2016 #1
Yeah, wait 'til the commit a real crime. Like murder. Then after the trial and conviction flamin lib Apr 2016 #2
What crimes are you not yet guilty of? Nuclear Unicorn Apr 2016 #3
male DVs don't often use guns, gejohnston Apr 2016 #5
Absolutely . . . NOT flamin lib Apr 2016 #6
Ahh, so nobody elses rights matter. beevul Apr 2016 #7
turn in your liberal card, gejohnston Apr 2016 #10
Sigh, everybody is a Constitutional Scholar. flamin lib Apr 2016 #12
not confiscation of property, gejohnston Apr 2016 #14
No sir. Guns everywhere all the time without concern for public or personal safery flamin lib Apr 2016 #15
No, I'm consistent about everything gejohnston Apr 2016 #16
Foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Ralph Waldo Emerson flamin lib Apr 2016 #19
key word being "foolish" gejohnston Apr 2016 #24
At least you were obvious trying to falsely attribute... beevul Apr 2016 #28
What's wrong with taking property? scscholar Apr 2016 #26
sometimes it is destroyed, or stolen by cops gejohnston Apr 2016 #27
"Preventive detention" is what the Nixon administration advocated... Eleanors38 Apr 2016 #8
I support the 4th Amendment and probable cause. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #9
It's called due process, as others have pointed out. theatre goon Apr 2016 #17
A tro is due process. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #18
Sure... theatre goon Apr 2016 #20
No. You are wrong and no amount of reason will convince you otherwise so I'm done with you. nt flamin lib Apr 2016 #21
Funny stuff. theatre goon Apr 2016 #22
Wrong again SecularMotion Apr 2016 #11
not the same thing, gejohnston Apr 2016 #13
Still wrong again. flamin lib Apr 2016 #23
I did, still doesn't say anything about property, gejohnston Apr 2016 #25
Wonder if she realized she also had the right to own a firearm? ileus Apr 2016 #4
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»House Passes Gun Bill: Fi...»Reply #17