Pelosi and Reid emasculating the John Doe legislation that would have inoculated an American citizen from the rapacious trial lawyers?
The bill was murdered by Pelosi and parroted by Reid at the behest of CAIR and the American Trial Lawyers Mob.
See, if you or I were to spot Mahmoud acting squirrelly and notify a law enforcement officer, said acolyte could sue us.
Thanks for another gem, Libbies.
2007-07-21 08:10:22 · 12 answers · asked by ? 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
You buy into fear, I will buy into freedom...good luck
2007-07-21 08:14:09 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋
Obviously, the protections in place for whistle blowers isn't effective; otherwise the Imams suing the John Does would never have happened.
Something needs to be done to protect people that report suspicious behavior.
How could someone abuse reporting suspicious behavior? Worst case scenario: an individual is reported, they do a spot investigation (maybe he's wearing a bomb), if he's clean, he gets to go. In the end all the happens is he's delayed a few hours.
But a John Doe reporting something, then getting sued for it? He'll spend thousands of dollars in court costs, not to mention the loss of time away from work, or his life in general. And that will be on people's minds the next time they see something suspicious and they may NOT say something, just for that reason. They don't want the hassle, or punishment, if they're wrong.
2007-07-21 15:23:55 · answer #2 · answered by sarge 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
It is an absurd notion to think that terrorist suspects should be protested by the same liberties that American citizens are. Terrorists are enemy combatants, even if they are not wearing the uniform of an established army. They deserve no liberties, they deserve no mercy. Their sole intent is to destroy our society. With the help of socialists like Pelosi, Reid, and Clinton, they would likely succeed. I have no pity on those who try to do us harm - we should not fight with one arm tied behind our backs.
2007-07-21 15:45:03 · answer #3 · answered by The Real America 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Okay so now you've had your rant. Now do something about it! Contact your Senator and tell them that you disapprove. I contacted mine yesterday and, let me tell you, the guy I talked to sounded very nervous. He told me that they had already gotten several calls complaining of her vote (Senator McCaskill). It would only take a few senators to change their vote and they can for a limited amount of time. Get on the phone and make them fear us more than the trial lawyers.
Current laws are obviously insuffcient note the Imans from MN.
One person says we are trying to protect someone who is trying to hurt someone. Wrong, we are trying to protect someone who is taking action to protect others.
2007-07-21 15:35:58 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
I read the text of the amendment and I believe it's worthwhile.
Note that it specifies "made in good faith and with the reasonable belief that such behavior is suspicious."
2007-07-21 15:18:20 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 2⤋
Have you actually read the legislation?
First of all, it's almost entirely redundant. The existing laws already protect anyone making a good faith claim, or anyone who provides evidence based on probable cause or reasonable suspicion of a crime. So, anyone who acts in good faith is already protected.
The bill proposal grants ABSOLUTE immunity, even someone acting illegally, in bad faith or with intent to harass.
How is it possibly a good idea to protect someone who is trying to harm another person....? Or is that OK as long as you don't like the person being harmed?
Absolute immunity from civil lawsuits invites abuse. People acting in good faith are already protected. People filing frivolous complaints are already punished. This doesn't change any of that.
This bill is bad law, because it encourages abuse of the system, and the only additional protections are for those who are acting in bad faith in the first place. Why protect someone who is only trying to harm someone else?
2007-07-21 15:16:30 · answer #6 · answered by coragryph 7 · 9⤊ 6⤋
Another step toward Communism,Dictatorship,Blame whoever it is coming!!!!!!!
2007-07-21 15:31:16 · answer #7 · answered by mcnatt c 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
This is the dems in a nutshell. Concerned more for terrorists rights. They also will nail you if you are not pc.
http://michellemalkin.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/ifyousee.jpg
2007-07-21 15:17:36 · answer #8 · answered by Tin Foil Fez 5 · 5⤊ 6⤋
YAWN.
Your ranting really doesn't speak to the issues or the legislation at all.
2007-07-21 15:36:51 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 8⤋
you Republicans sure sound desperate these days.
2007-07-21 15:19:46 · answer #10 · answered by Gemini 5 · 1⤊ 6⤋