Everyone knows about the NYPD’s ‘Stop and Frisk’ policy, but are you aware of the rationale behind that policy? Apparently the NYC police and mayor believe that the city’s inhabitants are guilty until proven otherwise, and are using the recent manhunt in Boston for the marathon bombers as an excuse for increasing surveillance.
In a Christian Science Monitor article discussing ‘teenagers, terrorism, and social media’, NYPD Sgt. Ed Mullins put all New Yorkers on notice that they no longer have a presumption of innocence:
Using a zero tolerance approach to track domestic terrorists online is the only reasonable way to analyze online threats these days, especially after the Boston Marathon bombing and news that the suspects had subsequently planned to target Times Square in Manhattan, Mullins says. The way law enforcement agencies approach online activity that appears sinister is this: “If you’re not a terrorist, if you’re not a threat, prove it,” he says.
Unfortunately, that’s not the way the law works, or at least not the way it’s intended to function. In the land of the free, citizens are supposed to maintain a presumption of innocence until proven otherwise. The implications of Sgt Mullins’ admission are disturbing. If there’s no presumption of innocence, then law enforcement officers are allowed to behave however they please, even going so far as to ignore evidence and harass innocent people.
Also, how can a person prove their innocense? How can you prove a negative? Mullins then goes a step further, saying that casting a wide net ensures freedom:
“This is the price you pay to live in free society right now. It’s just the way it is,” Mullins adds.
It’s “just the way it is” because the NYPD has decided to make it that way. It’s not judicial or fair. The people of NYC should stand up for their freedom before this sort of tyranny doesn’t become the law of the land.