Liberty does not mean Anarchy, either.
I like the phrase, "Liberty and Justice For All."
I think the two go together. Our Constitutional Rights do have limits, just as our ability to provide Justice has its limits. But that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to find the right balance. The Constitution also says it should, "promote Domestic Tranquility" and this, too, demands that we find that balance.
I don't subscribe to the idea that "somebody shoulda done something", but more this idea: If we could have reasonably prevented violence because *someone* knew that a person was unstable and potentially violent, then we should try to intervene taking into account their individual rights. And, YES, that is possible.
Here's an example of how it seemed to be handled appropriately:
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics...ebook-threats/ Medical Doctors will be able to work with Raub and tell authorities whether he is dangerous or not...albeit within a reasonable doubt. Given time, Raub should be able to get out if he is deemed sane and stay longer is he is deemed not.
We have background checks for mental/emotional treatment for good reason. We don't want crazy or potentially violent people legally buying guns. 91% of Americans support background checks. (IPSOS, April 2012) Doctors, and not prosecutors, make those recommendation and decisions, even though Doctors are not perfect, but the measure of a policy is not based on whether it can be done perfectly. That seems to me to be the right balance.
CC