... Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 "All of history attests that the centralization and concentration of power breed despotism." "We've witnessed a fire sale of American liberties at bargain basement prices, in return for the false promise of more security... The America being designed right now won't resemble the America we've been defending... The danger isn't that Big Brother may storm the castle gates. The danger is that Americans don't realize that he is already inside the castle walls." "I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedoms of the people by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations." "Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress." "...There is no nation on earth powerful enough to accomplish our overthrow. ... Our destruction, should it come at all, will be from another quarter. From the inattention of the people to the concerns of their government, from their carelessness and negligence, I must confess that I do apprehend some danger. I fear that they may place too implicit a confidence in their public servants, and fail properly to scrutinize their conduct; that in this way they may be made the dupes of designing men, and become the instruments of their own undoing." Sorry, folks, I was on a roll...
darksabre Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 Dark, the whole idea that there are exceptions to Mirandizing is the problem. Today a bomber suspect is excepted from Miranda because of public safety reasons. Tomorrow it is someone somewhat less heinous. And after that, less heinous still. But it is always justified. How long is it before it is the heroin dealer that unknowingly has bad stuff he's selling? Civil liberties and our basic protections as citizens are supposed to self evident and not subject to evolution. We are witnessing a rapid evolution of our liberties and protections from our government agencies. The problem with this interpretation of Miranda is that it ignores the point of Miranda, which is the prevention of self incrimination. The only people who suffer when Miranda is neglected is the prosecution.
HopefulFuture Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 It's been a slow, steady infringement on liberty. You cannot drive around a village today without a police cruiser with a plate scanner reading your plate. You cannot drive after a certain time on the weekend without expectation of a road block. What happened to the concept of presumed innocent? to the idea of reasonable suspicion driving police encounters and not random encounters on the road? We have given our law enforcement so much power through wars on drugs, drunk driving, and terror that we have created a law enforcement community that feels perfectly justified in driving families out of their house at gunpoint with hands on their heads and searching those homes without the residents eyes over them. Cops that are so overwhelming in their use dominance techniques for simple traffic stops. Actually weave, DUI checkpoints and so on are unconstitutional. I refuse to show my ID at all roadblocks, checkpoints and so on unless the officer shows "reasonable cause" for the stop. And, many on here that are armchair attorney's or actual attorney's will say they can get around that, think again, they can't, because I'm recording every second of it. I've never been arrested, although there were a couple of times I was harassed immensely. But as soon as the officers involved saw the camera, they immediately stopped. People need to understand, you must protect the rights given to you, and that includes free to travel unhindered, even at 3am. The clock does not dictate your rights, you do as a citizen. And for those that are for getting drunk drivers off the road, I agree, they shouldn't be on the road, but then again, why should my rights be infringed because of the actions of others, after all, I've done nothing wrong. And those checkpoints on registration and inspection stops, it's a money game, pure and simple. Law enforcement is there to protect and serve, but that costs massive money, especially in mandated contract states like New York where the police unions have the state and local governments over a barral, sticking it to the tax payer with no lube year after year. The system is now geared more toward revenue streams as opposed to protect and serve, and if your rights get run over in the process because you fail to invoke them with knowledge, blame the educational system in this nation. Think about that for a moment, why is it that the population is not taught the details of your rights combined with personal responsibility in a much broader scale in the public school systems? My money is on George Carlin's thoughts on this, they only want "obedient workers", they have no interest in a population of critical thinkers that can assert their rights. And that view point is on display every day across this nation.
shrader Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 A quick Google search didn't turn up any ACLU complaints about the door-to-door searches at gunpoint (but several about the suspect not being Mirandized). That is disappointing, as that would be a complaint that I'd support the ACLU on. Is it possible that there are no complaints about the searches because the people who's houses were searched have no problem with it? In that video posted earlier, I saw nothing that matched the description. No one was dragged out of that house kicking and screaming (which isn't to say it didn't happen somewhere else). Walking out with their hands on their heads does not imply that they are being forced out against their will. Ultimately, if these people had no problem with their homes being searched, what does it matter what any other person in this country things about it? And in response to one other idea I've seen thrown out here a couple times (not you specifically Taro, but I'm too lazy to go back and quote a few posts), the entire city was not locked down at any point. Outside of Watertown, there was nothing more than the suggestion to stay in doors in bordering towns. I was in the middle of one of those bordering towns and I got in my car and drove out of state. I passed several cops early in the drive and no one stopped me or even said a word. There were other cars and people on the street and they were never forced back inside. Anyone who did stay indoors all day did it by choice (a smart choice too), but they could have gone out at any point.
wjag Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 Is it possible that there are no complaints about the searches because the people who's houses were searched have no problem with it? In that video posted earlier, I saw nothing that matched the description. No one was dragged out of that house kicking and screaming (which isn't to say it didn't happen somewhere else). Walking out with their hands on their heads does not imply that they are being forced out against their will. Ultimately, if these people had no problem with their homes being searched, what does it matter what any other person in this country things about it? I too was wondering how the family felt. No small kids came out. Maybe that would have changed things. If that was my house and my family, I'm not sure I know what my emotions would be.
shrader Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 I too was wondering how the family felt. No small kids came out. Maybe that would have changed things. If that was my house and my family, I'm not sure I know what my emotions would be. There's plenty of daylight, so they're well aware of why the cops are there at that point. I'd be willing to bet a lot of people would have expected that knock on the door much earlier than when they got it.
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 I spoke with a friend who is a MA civil rights attorney about this conversation. He said the searches were actually very restrained and the officers were made very aware of the 4th amendment consequences. They could not search empty homes, and they had to get homeowner permission prior to entering. Some homeowners did indeed refuse, although not many. In addition, the "shelter in place" was voluntary. So anyone could leave at any time. He said the issues he had were that the searches were basically useless, all the kid had to do was hide in a vacant property, and it was a vacation week in Boston, so there were a lot of vacant properties. On top of that, he just assumed that the way the media covered the story people thought there was more tooth to the shelter in place than there really was. A State of Emergency (like during a storm) was never declared.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 Or the idiots recently busted in Toronto and Montreal for planning to blow up a via rail train from Toronto Bound for New York. Apparently well educated but told the judge that the criminal code doesn't apply to him because its not a holy book. Why is this individual in North America in the first place ? Go blow up your own friggin country. The one good turn that came from this sad tale of idiocy was that the Imam at the Mosque that these morons worshipped at is the one that alerted the authorities to these two. Credit should go to this man for turning these potential mass murderers in. That whole thing is a joke, but not in a ha, ha way. These two clowns say they are part of al qaeda in Iran. News flash there is no al qaeda in Iran. Don't get me wrong there are organized terrorist groups in Iran. In Iran the majority are a different sect of Islam than most of the Muslim world. The Shia and Suni (al qaeda is a Suni Muslim organization) would sooner kill each other, as they have for ages, then work together on their terror plots. For the record, I do not consider myself as belonging to either sect. The Qur'an warns Muslims about the splintering into sects and it is a dire warning. I find it no coincidence that these two were busted when they were. All done to distract the *useful idiots* of Canada so that Harper can pass that damn law to remove even more of our civil liberties. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be damned. As for what I have read and watched (thanks for the You Tube link, weave) unbelievable. I am generally a peaceful guy, but I really think it is time for the good citizens of the USA to take up their arms. 250, or so, years on, I think it is time for a do-over of the American Revolution. There is no hope for that in Canada.
Weave Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 I spoke with a friend who is a MA civil rights attorney about this conversation. He said the searches were actually very restrained and the officers were made very aware of the 4th amendment consequences. They could not search empty homes, and they had to get homeowner permission prior to entering. Some homeowners did indeed refuse, although not many. In addition, the "shelter in place" was voluntary. So anyone could leave at any time. He said the issues he had were that the searches were basically useless, all the kid had to do was hide in a vacant property, and it was a vacation week in Boston, so there were a lot of vacant properties. On top of that, he just assumed that the way the media covered the story people thought there was more tooth to the shelter in place than there really was. A State of Emergency (like during a storm) was never declared. I'm curious if he'd seen the video I posted and what his thoughts were. That did not strike me as a voluntary, restrained evacuation.
bunomatic Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 That whole thing is a joke, but not in a ha, ha way. These two clowns say they are part of al qaeda in Iran. News flash there is no al qaeda in Iran. Don't get me wrong there are organized terrorist groups in Iran. In Iran the majority are a different sect of Islam than most of the Muslim world. The Shia and Suni (al qaeda is a Suni Muslim organization) would sooner kill each other, as they have for ages, then work together on their terror plots. For the record, I do not consider myself as belonging to either sect. The Qur'an warns Muslims about the splintering into sects and it is a dire warning. I find it no coincidence that these two were busted when they were. All done to distract the *useful idiots* of Canada so that Harper can pass that damn law to remove even more of our civil liberties. Charter of Rights and Freedoms, be damned. As for what I have read and watched (thanks for the You Tube link, weave) unbelievable. I am generally a peaceful guy, but I really think it is time for the good citizens of the USA to take up their arms. 250, or so, years on, I think it is time for a do-over of the American Revolution. There is no hope for that in Canada. Harper has done a nice job of taking away the rights and freedoms of the sheeple in Canada. My only hope for the future of this country rests on him being ousted in the next election but then it'll just be another party to carry on the work he's started.
Sabres Fan in NS Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 Harper has done a nice job of taking away the rights and freedoms of the sheeple in Canada. My only hope for the future of this country rests on him being ousted in the next election but then it'll just be another party to carry on the work he's started. Two words. Justin. Trudeau. Be careful what you wish for, my friend. Not withstanding the last part of your post. Nothing ever really changes.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 I spoke with a friend who is a MA civil rights attorney about this conversation. He said the searches were actually very restrained and the officers were made very aware of the 4th amendment consequences. They could not search empty homes, and they had to get homeowner permission prior to entering. Some homeowners did indeed refuse, although not many. In addition, the "shelter in place" was voluntary. So anyone could leave at any time. He said the issues he had were that the searches were basically useless, all the kid had to do was hide in a vacant property, and it was a vacation week in Boston, so there were a lot of vacant properties. On top of that, he just assumed that the way the media covered the story people thought there was more tooth to the shelter in place than there really was. A State of Emergency (like during a storm) was never declared. They shut down all public transportation in a city that relies upon it. The schools closed. And yes....as we saw, the search was useless as it took a homeowner jonesing for a cigarette to catch the guy. So then why was it done? Why were 10,000 police, federal agents, and military brought in to set up a massive operation? And why did it take 3 days to identify someone from a photo who not only was on an FBI watchlist, but the family had been interviewed? Someone who even an outside government gave us the heads up on, and who was a prominent athlete in a US Olympic sanctioned sport? He was active in the community. If Baby Joe Mesi did this to the Taste of Buffalo in 2002 and had been scrutinized by the feds for years, do you think it would have taken the time it did to ID him? Not only did they have to know who it was, but they probably had dozens of calls on him as well. If you look around there are plenty of other videos of the operation. It seems in every one, someone points a machine gun at the person filming in their own home and says to get away from the window. That's real encouraging........... Did the response meet the threat? These guys were out partying at school days AFTER the bombing. I always enjoy following the discussion following events like this to see how people feel, and you can bet your bottom dollar your tax money is being used to collect and disect the data as well. And by asking questions.....it doesn't mean something IS.....it means something doesn't add up. That is unless 90% believe 1+1=3 when Big Sis tells them.
spndnchz Posted April 25, 2013 Author Report Posted April 25, 2013 We have your IP address and will be arriving shortly... film at eleven.
Taro T Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 I spoke with a friend who is a MA civil rights attorney about this conversation. He said the searches were actually very restrained and the officers were made very aware of the 4th amendment consequences. They could not search empty homes, and they had to get homeowner permission prior to entering. Some homeowners did indeed refuse, although not many. In addition, the "shelter in place" was voluntary. So anyone could leave at any time. He said the issues he had were that the searches were basically useless, all the kid had to do was hide in a vacant property, and it was a vacation week in Boston, so there were a lot of vacant properties. On top of that, he just assumed that the way the media covered the story people thought there was more tooth to the shelter in place than there really was. A State of Emergency (like during a storm) was never declared. How many people though will realistically have the cojones to tell 10 cops with assault rifles "no you can't come in and I'm not coming out either?" And the corollary, how many people in Watertown were going to walk out of their houses with the cops milling about in the street and leading their neighbors out of the house with their hands on their head? "Sorry officer, just needed to get a loaf of bread and some formula." How a situation / question is framed will greatly affect how a person interprets the situation. Though technically the homeowner doesn't have to leave his house, when the 'request' is presented at gunpoint and with overwhelming force, I wouldn't be overly critical of the owner that doesn't realize he had more options than leave or get arrested/shot/killed.
TrueBlueGED Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 TBP, does this become an issue in the political sphere? Could the security/surveillance state thing become an election issue? I mean, if sizzle and i agree about something... I suspect it's rather unpatriotic to complain about the methods used to capture a radical Islamic terrorist bomb suspect on the loose. I'm not surprised the number here that are treading lightly is great. I certainly think it can become an election issue, but it's not going to without a few things happening: 1) I think first and foremost, there has to be some "flashpoint" incident to put it on the map. By a flashpoint incident I'm talking about a serious transgression which gives people something to rally around. Since we're talking about how the search went down in Boston....if there was video or pictures of police smacking around residents to get them out of their homes without a warrant, that could certainly have caused some real public noise. The American people tend to be very reactive, so unless there is a blatant government/police transgression which impacts American citizens, I'm not sure it can be an election issue. If something were to happen, I think everyone would see the real value that social media can have in society--it would be huge news almost instantly. This relates to #2 and what Weave said... 2) There is currently a very strong national security norm in this country, and has been since 9/11. I believe this will eventually change, and if liberties continue to be curtailed as this changes, that will help it become an election issue. If we want to compare the "war on terror" mentality, we can look at the McCarthy Era or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII: actions caused by hysteria, which were later wholly rejected and shot down not only by the people, but by the courts. It's just going to take time IMO. 3) A legitimate, credible leader to champion the issue. I mean no offense to anybody with this, but I think a lot of times when people speak publicly about a "slippery slope" or the dangers of curtailing liberties, they can come off as paranoid and a little nuts (this directly relates to #1....there hasn't been a serious transgression yet). Obviously the fight for civil rights began before Martin Luther King was a major figure, but he helped take it to the next level--a charismatic, credible issue leader. As much as I love Ron Paul's sincerity...to a lot of people he really does come off like a semi-senile cranky grandfather when he's ranting about things. He's more Malcolm-X than Martin Luther King. A real leader could help solve the collective action problem....and make no mistake, even when attitudes change, the collective action problem remains. Individual incentives, at any point in time, are to cooperate with law enforcement when they have nothing to hide, even if standing up for their rights could help create a bigger liberty-oriented movement. I already think a changing of attitudes is happening...but it's an extremely gradual change. Many may "poo-poo" this, but I think the TSA relaxing boarding rules for young children and seniors was an important first step. And there has been some, albeit small, blowback against the response to the Boston bombings. The key element here is time--it's going to take more than most are comfortable with to get the ball rolling, but this is no different than attitude change on any other issue be it segregation and racial discrimination or gay marriage. People often talk about creating a powder keg of conditions that just needs to be ignited for something bad to happen....I think we're slowly creating a powder keg of conditions that just needs to be ignited for something good to happen on this stuff. How many people though will realistically have the cojones to tell 10 cops with assault rifles "no you can't come in and I'm not coming out either?" And the corollary, how many people in Watertown were going to walk out of their houses with the cops milling about in the street and leading their neighbors out of the house with their hands on their head? "Sorry officer, just needed to get a loaf of bread and some formula." How a situation / question is framed will greatly affect how a person interprets the situation. Though technically the homeowner doesn't have to leave his house, when the 'request' is presented at gunpoint and with overwhelming force, I wouldn't be overly critical of the owner that doesn't realize he had more options than leave or get arrested/shot/killed. IMO there will eventually be a black woman who refuses to change her seat.
MattPie Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 The problem with this interpretation of Miranda is that it ignores the point of Miranda, which is the prevention of self incrimination. The only people who suffer when Miranda is neglected is the prosecution. Thanks, you beat me too it. The Miranda statement's sole use is to inform the suspect of the rights he already has. It's to protect the prosecution from the suspect blurting out something incriminating and then claiming he didn't know he had the right to keep quiet and have a lawyer. The worst case is that he says something that can't be used as evidence in a criminal trial later. I don't know if it's been tested in court, but I'd be surprised if there are many people that haven't seen a police drama and don't know those words by heart. I suppose you could argue that's a work of fiction. Eleven, I believe has been trying to make this point for days. Actually weave, DUI checkpoints and so on are unconstitutional. I refuse to show my ID at all roadblocks, checkpoints and so on unless the officer shows "reasonable cause" for the stop. And, many on here that are armchair attorney's or actual attorney's will say they can get around that, think again, they can't, because I'm recording every second of it. I've never been arrested, although there were a couple of times I was harassed immensely. But as soon as the officers involved saw the camera, they immediately stopped. I take it your jurisdiction doesn't have laws about recording police officers doing their duty? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/27/supreme-court-recording-police_n_2201016.html Likely coming to a court near you!
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 Great post TruBlue......common sense hopefully wins the day. And the thing that got me about the conversation earlier, is that we do have the possible flashpoint. Islam. There is a lot of mistrust of government right now, especially from those who lean right. The one thing that seems to get the right on board however is the "rah-rah....let's go bomb the bad guys...rah-rah" sort of situation. Iran has to be dealt with at some point, and Syria is right there as well. Their allies in Russia and China have been gathering as many hard resources as possible and continue to divest from US holdings. For a while it has been in everyones' best interests to keep things afloat and work together.....however as pressure points continue to occur in economies, there will come a time where it makes sense to ramp up confrontation if these countries feel they have built up their reserves. So say for instance, over the next year at some point, Iran has it's nuke capabilities taken out and Syria finally topples. There will most likely be chaos in some regard. Prices for hard goods will start to rise again, and in a show of strength, you can see China and Russia tell us to stuff it. It won't start out with a full blown war, but in keeping trade with other countries and moving away from the dollar, the US starts to crack even more given their unsustainable unfunded liabilities. Once the cracks are big enough, in the name of Islam and US opression overseas, you get a series of events on US soil. It doesn't have to be grand scale as we have just seen. If you can just get 4-10 college kids in 6 or 7 cities carrying out similar stature events over a course of a few months......what would the reaction be of the civilian population? They would probably welcome the militaristic operation we saw in Boston. As this is all happening, the financial system starts to buckle. We are at war with the east, and if our buddies aren't supporting us, and maybe even adding to the financial warfare....it will be up to us on our own to handle the ramifications. If you know that a) at some point the financial system is going to cave in and drastic changes need to be implimented b) we need to deal with instability overseas as we are about to lose control of our oil supplies monitarily, if not physically c) there are a few hundred or few thousand in the US that are willing to carry out bad deeds.............then it may be in your best interests to take your medicine all at once, thus being able to plan to take on your biggest longterm problem which is the financial collapse of the system, by using the other points to your advantage. If you can plan ahead and try to make it happen on your own terms, and not that of the free market.....then you can maintain as much structure and control as possible. This has been my biggest fear now for years. I see no way out of A. It is going to happen...it has to happen at some point soon. To the point B and C are used in attempting to maintain the current power structure? I don't know. But to me, it is the easiest tool to use for a massive problem. As long as people have at least a loose understanding of what can happen, then maybe they can look at events in a different light. I'm not saying there is some grand wizardly dastardly plan......we have enjoyed decades of prosperous living......if it has to go, it has to go. My disgust has been that while the public is told one thing, those behind the scenes are enriching themselves until the game of musical chairs stops. So it's nice to see the flow in this thread pushed towards conversation on the buildingblocks of what made us enjoy prosperity in the first place, instead of trying to win points in crafting debate from domestic conflict. We can't all agree on everything, but instead of universally calling anything Good or Bad.....use the debate points to focus on the things we truly need to rely on each other for and what brings the common good out in people. How are we going to help each other out when the time comes? If you can understand a frightening scenario ahead of time, when it really happens the chaos will be dampened because the shock witt not be as large. Then maybe everyone can keep cooler heads.
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 They shut down all public transportation in a city that relies upon it. The schools closed. And yes....as we saw, the search was useless as it took a homeowner jonesing for a cigarette to catch the guy. So then why was it done? Why were 10,000 police, federal agents, and military brought in to set up a massive operation? And why did it take 3 days to identify someone from a photo who not only was on an FBI watchlist, but the family had been interviewed? Someone who even an outside government gave us the heads up on, and who was a prominent athlete in a US Olympic sanctioned sport? He was active in the community. If Baby Joe Mesi did this to the Taste of Buffalo in 2002 and had been scrutinized by the feds for years, do you think it would have taken the time it did to ID him? Not only did they have to know who it was, but they probably had dozens of calls on him as well. If you look around there are plenty of other videos of the operation. It seems in every one, someone points a machine gun at the person filming in their own home and says to get away from the window. That's real encouraging........... Did the response meet the threat? These guys were out partying at school days AFTER the bombing. I always enjoy following the discussion following events like this to see how people feel, and you can bet your bottom dollar your tax money is being used to collect and disect the data as well. And by asking questions.....it doesn't mean something IS.....it means something doesn't add up. That is unless 90% believe 1+1=3 when Big Sis tells them. First, some clarifications: Schools were already closed. Shutting down public transportation carries absolutely no value in a discussion of civil rights. It's public transportation. The military was the Massachusetts National Guard, an important distinction. Tamerlan was on a watchlist containing half a million names, and was in a crowd of tens of thousands wearing his hat low an sunglasses (like lots of other people in that crowd). Three days is pretty quick. Other than that, yes, the response exceeded the threat. Someone stated earlier that we expect our intelligence and public safety personnel to be omniscient. If they didn't lock down the city, and a civilian or civilians died, we'd hang them out to dry. Our expectation of security is flawed. Life is dangerous, bad people do bad things, we can try and mitigate it, but we'll never stop it entirele. The sooner we accept that the better. How many people though will realistically have the cojones to tell 10 cops with assault rifles "no you can't come in and I'm not coming out either?" And the corollary, how many people in Watertown were going to walk out of their houses with the cops milling about in the street and leading their neighbors out of the house with their hands on their head? "Sorry officer, just needed to get a loaf of bread and some formula." How a situation / question is framed will greatly affect how a person interprets the situation. Though technically the homeowner doesn't have to leave his house, when the 'request' is presented at gunpoint and with overwhelming force, I wouldn't be overly critical of the owner that doesn't realize he had more options than leave or get arrested/shot/killed. Yes, all of this. Way to much of a response, but I think that had a lot to do with our expectations as a society. I certainly think it can become an election issue, but it's not going to without a few things happening: 1) I think first and foremost, there has to be some "flashpoint" incident to put it on the map. By a flashpoint incident I'm talking about a serious transgression which gives people something to rally around. Since we're talking about how the search went down in Boston....if there was video or pictures of police smacking around residents to get them out of their homes without a warrant, that could certainly have caused some real public noise. The American people tend to be very reactive, so unless there is a blatant government/police transgression which impacts American citizens, I'm not sure it can be an election issue. If something were to happen, I think everyone would see the real value that social media can have in society--it would be huge news almost instantly. This relates to #2 and what Weave said... 2) There is currently a very strong national security norm in this country, and has been since 9/11. I believe this will eventually change, and if liberties continue to be curtailed as this changes, that will help it become an election issue. If we want to compare the "war on terror" mentality, we can look at the McCarthy Era or the internment of Japanese-Americans during WWII: actions caused by hysteria, which were later wholly rejected and shot down not only by the people, but by the courts. It's just going to take time IMO. 3) A legitimate, credible leader to champion the issue. I mean no offense to anybody with this, but I think a lot of times when people speak publicly about a "slippery slope" or the dangers of curtailing liberties, they can come off as paranoid and a little nuts (this directly relates to #1....there hasn't been a serious transgression yet). Obviously the fight for civil rights began before Martin Luther King was a major figure, but he helped take it to the next level--a charismatic, credible issue leader. As much as I love Ron Paul's sincerity...to a lot of people he really does come off like a semi-senile cranky grandfather when he's ranting about things. He's more Malcolm-X than Martin Luther King. A real leader could help solve the collective action problem....and make no mistake, even when attitudes change, the collective action problem remains. Individual incentives, at any point in time, are to cooperate with law enforcement when they have nothing to hide, even if standing up for their rights could help create a bigger liberty-oriented movement. I already think a changing of attitudes is happening...but it's an extremely gradual change. Many may "poo-poo" this, but I think the TSA relaxing boarding rules for young children and seniors was an important first step. And there has been some, albeit small, blowback against the response to the Boston bombings. The key element here is time--it's going to take more than most are comfortable with to get the ball rolling, but this is no different than attitude change on any other issue be it segregation and racial discrimination or gay marriage. People often talk about creating a powder keg of conditions that just needs to be ignited for something bad to happen....I think we're slowly creating a powder keg of conditions that just needs to be ignited for something good to happen on this stuff. IMO there will eventually be a black woman who refuses to change her seat. Thanks, that's the analysis I was looking for.
Eleven Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 http://www.usatoday....reddit/2112309/ The "wrong suspect" has now been found dead.
Taro T Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 http://www.usatoday....reddit/2112309/ The "wrong suspect" has now been found dead. :(
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 http://www.usatoday....reddit/2112309/ The "wrong suspect" has now been found dead. REALLY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HE WAS PROBABLY DEAD BEFORE THE REDDIT THING!!! HE'S BEEN MISSING SINCE 3/15.
shrader Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 http://www.usatoday....reddit/2112309/ The "wrong suspect" has now been found dead. Way to go NY Post. REALLY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HE WAS PROBABLY DEAD BEFORE THE REDDIT THING!!! HE'S BEEN MISSING SINCE 3/15. I'm pretty sure you're talking about the wrong person since this is the kid shown in a picture at the marathon on 4/15.
LastPommerFan Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 Way to go NY Post. Missing since 3/15, the day of the marathon? Not the NY Post guy, the Reddit guy, and not 4/15 (day of marathon), 3/15 (a month before)
Eleven Posted April 25, 2013 Report Posted April 25, 2013 REALLY IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT HE WAS PROBABLY DEAD BEFORE THE REDDIT THING!!! HE'S BEEN MISSING SINCE 3/15. Yep, that's what the article says. What's with the New York Post font you're using there?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.