The answer to this question should be easy, but it's not. That's because you can probably mount an equally good argument for each.
Except, that is, in the middle of a gang infested neighborhood late at night in one of Chicago's ghettos. You know, the ones the French Government recently advised its citizens traveling to Chicago "to avoid for your own safety." Despite the harrumphing by our mayor, no traveler [French or otherwise] should go south of 74th street or west of Kedzie. Why? Because past those borders, constitutional protections can't protect you. Neither can the ACLU or Amnesty International. A cop might!
Does this mean vigilantism? No, but it sure as hell does mean vigilance. There's this wonderful Greek proverb: "A society grows great when old men plant trees whose shade they know they shall never sit in." The only trouble is that in today's cities we lack enough trees with which to work. When the criminal's rights supercede those of the victim, then we have a problem. One in which simply understanding the causes of the wretched ghettos won't help you survive one.
But we are warned that cops and drones and surveillance are getting out of control. We are losing our rights. We are giving way to a police state. The warning has long term merit. But in the short term the question still remains: When is a corrupt cop better for my safety than a constitutional lawyer....?
Filed under: Uncategorized