Well thats a nice peice of bravado but lets face it, you would do nothing of the sort. As much as I would even like to think I would do it I know I wouldn’t, and I actually have knowledge and access to do such a thing since securing these people is what I do for a living.
Interesting comment. So are you saying that in our imaginary scenario, if someone gets convicted of rape the police should have the ability to trample the very rights you say shouldn’t be given up? If so, then where is the line? Exactly who gets defined as a “criminal”? Do we give the same rights to the drunk driver as we do the child molester? It’s a slippery slope once you start down it which is why under our current law it’s an all or nothing type of thing.
Thanks Thumb… Good to see at least someone out there gets it.
[badsarcasticlegalese]
As self-appointed devil’s advocate of the HTMF Goodwin’s Law tribunal, I hereby call the current procedings into session.
For those of you who don’t know me, my name is Stardog Champion, and I hail from the great state of intoxication.
A question has been raised into whether Eso’s usage of the word “Nazi” requires the invocation of Goodwin’s Law, and the subsequent locking of the current discussion. I would like to submit that in this case, it does not.
According to the statute outlined in Wikipedia, Goodwin’s Law states:
The statute further states that there is no requirement to end the discussion upon this point; such ending is merely a tradition.
Furthermore, Eso’s use of the word “Nazi” vis-a-vis CrazyMike’s comment was clearly used as a slur against the latter, and not intended as a direct reference to Hitler or the Nazi regime. While Eso’s use of said word may have been in poor taste, I conclude that it is not a de facto Nazi reference, and as such Goodwin’s Law does not apply.