Difficult Civil Rights Question

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!

Cooercive collectivism, eh? :-)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Maggie and Aliantha, I swear, someone needs to bash your heads together then make you shake hands!

Dana, I'm shocked and disappointed....advocating violence, what's the world coming to.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

Here comes the fist
it's heading straight towards me
maybe he'll stop at the last moment and not connect
WOW it's really close now, just a few millimters away, I bet he doesn't have time to stop now
Maybe I should wait a little longer and see, he might surprise me
OOPS he didn't stop
Here come the stars
maybe he won't punch me again


At what point do you decide to take action then? It's not a crime for me to punch,
"just stay away from my fisty areas"

Precicely...
"I was just punching, he got in the way."
Again, if they say it, you have to assume they are telling the truth.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

Dana, I'm shocked and disappointed....advocating violence, what's the world coming to.

Yes, I'm certain that in the UK, action would be taken under the "Anti-Social Behaviour" laws.

No, I'm not kidding.

[footfootfoot]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

No, I'm not kidding.

Those goddamn tree climbing flyposters have completey ruined the neighborhood. What's next, organized outdoor parties?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by footfootfoot

What's next, organized outdoor parties?

If so, you can be certain they'll be Mandatory... :-)

[BigV]

Originally Posted by 9th Engineer

So you're advocating premptive action then, you want to punish based on the outcome you think will happen rather than any actual crime.

The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.

Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.

You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."

Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by BigV

When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

The definition of when a crime is comitted is pretty clear. When a conviction happens is clear too. And when appeals are exhausted.

These are all distinct events.

[BigV]

So for example...

Did Ken Lay commit a crime?

Please be pretty clear.

Originally Posted by BigV

The point you're missing 9th, is that you and rkz disagree on what the original action is. You read it as having not yet happened--some physical action/threat/violence/etc. rkz reads it as having already happened--the action of communicating, specifically communicating the imminent arrival of more violence. That communication you see as a warning, a threat of violence and rkz sees as actual violence, deserving a response. A response in this case that would both prevent a second act of violence against him, and against all others.

Your disagreement is rooted in your different interpretations of "action". You see the words as inaction and therefore the physical reply as "preemptive". rkz sees the words as the intial, or at least the preceeding action, and his reply is just that. He didn't start it. Or maybe he did, but this action he describes is not the start.

You bring up a good point with the idea of an "actual crime". But I think that's a whole different discussion. When is a crime commited? When the act happens? When the arrest happens? When the guilty verdict is rendered? What if the verdict is innocent? What if it's unreported? What defines "actual crime"?

Another thought tracks this line: Is it better to seek permission or forgiveness? It could be rephrased "seek proof or judgement" just as easily. rkz is saying "I'll see your bet (threat) and raise you (deadly force, out of the game). You're gone and therefore I win."

Another discussion should be had as to the appropriateness of the response. Of course, both parties have to be alive to have a discussion.

Not "win" simply safe.
As a previous security associate, your attitude would have made me a very dead individual.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Not "win" simply safe.

"win" in the context of the analogy of seeing a bet in a poker game and raising it, thereby "winning" by forcing the other out of the hand. Not to be confused with any other context.

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

As a previous security associate, your attitude would have made me a very dead individual.

What? What do you know about my attitude? You should explain this better.

[BigV]

Another difficult civil rights question.

Summary:

Two American citizens are on a plane returning home to Lodi California are forbidden to re-enter the United States by the FBI for refusing to answer questions.

Jaber Ismail, who was born in the United States, was questioned by the F.B.I. at the American Embassy in Islamabad, but his father, a naturalized United States citizen from Pakistan, declined to participate, Ms. Mass said. Jaber Ismail has refused further interrogation without a lawyer and has declined to take a polygraph test; Ms. Mass said the men were told these conditions had to be met before the authorities would consider letting them back into the United States.

WTF?!?! Conditions of reentry are polygraphs and interrogation without a lawyer present? No charges, of course, just step into the little room.

I take it back. This civil rights question doesn't seem difficult at all. Maybe for some, but not for me.

[Spexxvet]

Profiling, a little?

[BigV]

Originally Posted by BigV

So for example...

Did Ken Lay commit a crime?

Please be pretty clear.

bump

:crickets chirping: