What would you do?
Â Many things regarding law enforcement, the government, and individual rights can be a very dangerous and slippery slope.Â For example; I've been giving a lot of additional thought toÂ a particular incident that occurred a few weeks ago, and while I still think the police did the right thing in not risking violence in that case, I wonder what other ways it could have been handled besides the simple black & white of the issue as it has been discussed over at the other article.
What if the government hadÂ placed cameras around the area of the protest so that the police could later better identify perpetrators of actual crimes for better apprehension later? Or had all of the protestors sign in to the event and get security badges in order to participate? Technically that would have made it easier to catch and punishÂ those breaking the law without undue risk to any innocents or law enforcement, but still would have impinged on the rights of all of the other protestors, and many good people (no matter what their affiliation or beliefs) likely would not attend events if those sort of measures were in place, simplyÂ because of the myriad of possible governmental abuses of that level of surveillance.
Which brings me to question; how would you handle the job of keeping the peace while still enabling quick and efficient law enforcement? If three people in the center of fifty were breaking a law, what would your best idea be for how to apprehend the law-breakers without possibly of compromising or denying the rights ofÂ law-abiding citizens, and without frightening or offending those behaving in an appropriate manner? Â I would love to hear your ideas as to how to best solve this dilemma.Â