Doug Kanter wrote:

I usually like what you have to say, but I'm still not clear on whether
"publicly" and "fingerprinted" belong together in a complaint. What
difference does it make who's watching?

Actually, I'd object to being fingerprnted at all, but there are certainly more
negative connotations the more people are watching. With the powerful
association our culture has for fingerprinting = criminal, it seems pretty
obvious why.



....I was fingerprinted for my pistol
permit in a room with several people who were doing administrative cop
things, and a couple of other guys waiting on a bench 10 feet away. Only the
cop who printed me was close enough to matter.

Here in NC, we have concealed-carry permits which I believe requires
fingerprinting, but to get a license to buy a pistol all you need is a signature
from your county sheriff.

But, for example, let's say that one of the cops who was present when you were
fingerprinted stops you for some petty reason, traffic or something.... and
remembers your face but not where & why he remembers it... and you end up
handcuffed or worse.



Of course, I just had 3 enormous oatmeal cookies and sugar shock may be
keeping me from seeing the point. That was a disclaimer. Be gentle with me.
:-)

I only hammer those whose skulls have been proven thick enough to need it



swatcop wrote:
Certain "constitutional rights" do not apply to individuals assigned the
responsibility of protecting our nation.

"Charles" wrote
This is a very troubling statement from someone who has represented
themselves as being in law inforcement.


I'm glad someone else feels this way. Law enforcement professionals should have
*more* respect for constitutional rights, not less.



Doug Kanter wrote:
Yeah, but it's true. In various news stories over the years, I've heard that
enlisted people are missing a few rights in criminal proceedings. It's just
accepted as part of the deal.

You mean people who enlist in the military? Yes, they definitely have limits on
some of their constitutionals rights, and not just with regard to criminal
matters. They are allowed to vote, but not to publish political material or
speech. But that's the military, would it make sense to have soldiers, sailors,
and marines suing the gov't every time there was a battle? When you sign up,
your ass belongs to Uncle Sam and they make that plain before you go in.

What bothers me is the casual attitude about privacy and consitutional freedoms
for citizens... and the disdain for volunteers who might not want to submit to
various kinds of negative procedures and/or hazing. No wonder they are losing
people.

A while ago I was associated with some hospital volunteers. People who gave up
their time to try and help others when they need it most. The hospital assigned
"volunteer coordination" as a subsidiary job to the least effective and least
liked administrator.... who proceded to drive away all the volunteers.

Way to problem solve!

Is the issue really national security, or is it just a front so a few
under-endowed guys can act all macho?

DSK