then could it be OK for citizens to restrain people if necessary?
131380
my daddy once set a trap for a neighborhood burglar (who turned out to be an illegal immigrant, but thats another subject), caught him, tied him up, and held him captive until the police came. mom and I helped him do it. there was no violence involved whatsoever. it was a citizens arrest and none of us got into any trouble.
225520
Darn good question, I have lately become concerned that this whole country is just getting to a point where there is no more self responsibility.  The govt told me to wear a seatbelt, therefore if I still got hurt cuz I was drunk driving, clearly it is the govt's fault.\n\nI am sorry I am not going to be much help, because I don't know where that line should be drawn...\nI think I read someone's answer the other day that said when our freedom infringes on another's - that's when they should definitely step in.  But then some people also need extra help to keep from killing themselves.\n\nI look forward to someone having the right answer.
350626
I think that would be fantastic idea. Anyone guilty of unsocial behavior,minor crimes it would certainly make them think before breaking the law.Just imagine the uproar this would cause ,(ITS against their Human rights)\nNever about the rights of law abiding citizens.
378838
YOUR  right. BUT  PEOPLE  need  to  keep  the  LAWS  too.
261282
It depends, whether or not they are safe there. I don't think we should sacrifice our common history just to satisfy one people’s pride or greed.
468260
Your other respondents have already given you the basic answer.  Where your expression creates an imminent danger to other citizens, then that expression is not allowed.  Some words are considered too inflammatory for public expression, or "fighting words".  You cannot express yourself to the point of provoking others to violence or panic where public safety is jeopardized.  That is common sense and our laws were written with a common sense public in mind.  In other words, most of us know what is right and what is wrong.  We know better than to incite a riot with lying words in a polarized crowd for instance.  Because some people are too dense to use common sense, we have had to verbalize and memorialize some of those restrictions.  Call it censorship if you wish but it is really stating certain restrictions on the freedom of expression that most of us already clearly understand.
120036
YES very. NO one can BEAT You, spanking on the bottom when needed is Sometimes acceptable, BUT Beating NO . next time this is said say : 'anyone ever beats me I am calling the police'. and MEAN it. best wishes for no beatings. there is already enough of us survivors out here, trust me we need no more.
18632
If there is a natural disaster for example, they would need to close down/be evacuated.\nAlso, simply for security reseasons, they MUST have locks etc
312504
I'm not sure of the laws your talking about, I don't need someone who is elite to decide for me wether or not my neighbor can just come over my house kill me and take my posessions without penalty.\n\nThe laws your probably talking about are the ones where the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one, and we have no control and have to keep paying car insurance and stuff like that.\n\nOne day we may have politicians elected that do represent the people.  I suggest you check out the Libertarian party.
321544
Nothing at all.....yes they should be punished to the fullest extint of the law.  How does it look for the people who are put in place to enforce the law constantly break it and get away scott free?  This may go on but it takes courageous individuals who know of this type of inappropriate behavior to come forward and make this unsavory deeds known.  No matter what the cost....a philosopher once said....without struggle there is no success.......
647198
Some laws which deal with public safety should not be ignored.\nSeat belts. Speed limits. Drunken driving\nLaws which deal with personal choices/freedoms are so stupid one cannot help but ignore them. Drugs.
86376
Its a matter of preception. If you believe that this country is responsible for the welfare of its citizens then yes. If you believe that everyone can help themselves, then no
258136
Laws don't protect people.  They are not designed as a preventative measure.  Instead, they are designed as a deterrent and spell out the measures that will be taken against anyone who perpetrates a crime.   The concept is, inform people of those actions deemed by society as unacceptable and the people will not engage in those activities.  It works for most of society.\n\nAddressing it another way, the law is “reactive” not “proactive“.   It only becomes active after an offence has been committed, and another victim created. \n\nTo be anything else would constitute prior restraint.  We could lock everyone up and prevent crime that way.  But that is unfair, impractical, and it would never work in America.  You do find this type of action being taken in some countries around the world.  Recipients of this type treatment are often referred to as "political prisoners".  Their incarceration by a government is intended as a preemptive measure.  The idea is to find a individual or group perceived to be a threat and conduct a preemptive strike by locking them away before they can commit a crime.  \n\nThis sort of thing occurred in the US during WWI when legislation was passed that denied American citizens the right to criticize the government or it's war efforts.  The idea was to control vocal groups before they could be heard both here and in the enemy's camp.  \n\nWWII saw a similar activity when Japanese Americans were interned in camps away from the coast.  The concern was, where did the true loyalty of Japanese Americans lie.  The government felt Japanese Americans loyalty could easily lie with Japan even if the people had earned citizenship and had sworn allegiance to the United States.  Most of these families lost everything, their land, personal property, and any other holdings.  Some restitution was paid but many never recovered even a small percentage of their losses.  In my opinion the only thing good that came of this was that during WWII we didn't experience the wholesale execution of Japanese Americans.  While it was never tested, I believe feelings against the Japanese ran so high that many white Americans may have acted as vigilantes if the opportunity would have presented itself.  This action could have cost thousands of Japanese American lives right here in the USA.\n\nAnother aspect of our justice system in "proof beyond a reasonable doubt".  This brings home the concept of "innocent until proven guilty".  Typically the state has more resources than the defendant so the burden placed on the state is higher than on the defense.  All a defense attorney has to do is introduce a reasonable doubt in one juror and the result is a mistrial.  While the state must convince each and every juror "beyond a reasonable doubt" of the guilt of the defendant.\n\nI hope this helps, I tend to get a bit long sometimes but you can weed out anything you don’t want to use.
196847
The constitution does not say that only citizens are protected by the 4th-8th Amendments, it merely says, "no person." You would want to be given the same rights of citizens if charged in another country, wouldn't you? In fact, the public tends to get up in arms, even when someone IS given the same rights and is given a harsh punishment.
312212
Good question...I modified a bit to current times.  BTW - I realize this is for homework, but I thought it fun anyway.\n\nAmendment 1: Congress shall pass no law prohibiiting a reasonable establishment of religion, restricting a public voice offering opinion except in the case of sedition, preventing the gathering of people to voice said opinion or any other provided reasonable safety be held, nor restricting the press to publish opinion apart from matters that severely address the safety of the nation as a whole, or the call upon the government to address the grievences of the people.\n\nAmendment 2\nArms shall be held in the case of a standing militia recognized by the government of the United States.\n\nAmendment 3\nQuartering of troops shall not be forced unless law has been passed and the owner has been notified.\n\nAmendment 4\nSearches of persons and properties shall be conducted only when the person or owner of said property is well notiifed and informed.  Seizures of properties shall have reasonable consent from the court and written notice given to the owner or location of said property defining to what property is to be seized.
34635
The Constitution of the United States of America provides protection of the speech acts of its citizens provided that:\n1. they are not putting anyone else in danger,\n2. the person involved in the speech act is not in the military or incarcerated,\n3. the speech act is not considered obscene by the judicial system.\n\nOther than that, free speech should not be curtailed under the law.
518645
Was the property posted with signs or otherwise made to keep people out? Simple rules of common sense apply. If a reasonably person should have known they were not supposed to be there, then you're guilty.