|
Aswad -> RE: Early Morning Chaos in Boston (4/20/2013 4:19:18 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: TheHeretic
This is where we diverge, Aswad. The right of the innocent to go about their business without getting blown up is a value as well. As I'm understanding what you have said, that is the value you are willing to chuck out the window, in a conflict with the value of the suspect's right's. I'm going with the right of the people to peacefully assemble.
Right of assembly exists between State and Citizen. So does the right to due process.
But, hey, you're right. Police believe they have the guilty party, heretofore referred to as "the suspect" until the formality of a verdict has been notarized in a court of law for the benefit of nitpickers like me who irrationally insist on there being strict rules to regulate the interaction between States and Citizens. So let's ditch due process right now, and just redefine him as guilty. Get some righteous torture going so he can reveal that his brother, uncle, nurse, president and unborn child were in on the whole thing. Then let's execute him by piling those people on top of him in a huge press and say justice was done.
And let's do the same thing the next time the designated agents of the State feel like they've got a handle on things.
You're talking about the State unilaterally withdrawing from the arrangement between States and Citizens whenever it's convenient. Fuck that, no. You want to have the safety of Citizens assured? You want to save Citizens' lives? Then start with things like universal healthcare. What? That a "no" I'm hearing? Is that in any way a controversial measure? Isn't it obvious that the State can and should tax all its Citizens howevermuch it feels is necessary to ensure the health of other Citizens? Shouldn't their lives trump your fiscal integrity?
That's what this notion of "rights" extending to matters between Citizens is about, an entitlement of the Citizens which is effectuated by empowering the State to stomp on other Citizens for the reason that someone wants something from you, rather than for the reason that you've broken the law. That's part of the rotten heart of modern socialist thinking. It seems to me it's pretty controversial when it's about things like healthcare or when it applies to you and me, and for good reason. So, too, should this be controversial.
Innocent until proven guilty.
I don't know if you're big on that. I am. In part because I'm not the State and the State is not me. It's not about what "we" want to do to the guy, or how "we" see him. There's no "we" in there (in fact, that's usually illegal, falling under the heading of vigilantism or whatever). It's between him and the State, as in any other case where the State apprehends a Citizen on charges of having broken the law. And until this man has been tried before a jury of his peers and found guilty, the State should consider him a Citizen and accord him the rights due any other unconvicted Citizen.
If you want to torture and kill him, go do so. I won't complain. If the State upholds its duty to prosecute you for it, I won't complain about that, either. If you go with it, turn yourself in and plead guilty, I'll silently salute you in my heart for your integrity. But the moment you want to loosen the leash on the State in relation to its Citizens, that's when we disagree.
quote:
Is it worth losing a little sleep over? Absolutely.
Quite so. Almost as much as the notion of a State being allowed free reign in matters of law.
quote:
So, if something bad has to happen here, what is the best way to do it?
Read him his rights. Take him to the nearest place you have a recorder on hand to document the interrogation, and start asking questions. That's what we did up here with Breivik. And, as you no doubt remember, he was a far more credible threat than this guy. He already blew up three times as many people and a building, injured between 300 and 800 people (depending on what you count as an injury), shot nearly a hundred youngsters, and- so the police believed at the time- had explosives rigged around the island, which still had a lot of innocents on it.
You already had most of Boston in effective house arrest. The streets were empty, except for police. There were no large masses of civilians to target anywhere. There was no evidence of any large explosive devices, nor had he shown himself capable of making and deploying any. And the police had just swept through Watertown, house by house, meaning they would have noticed any trucks parked around the place. So, tell me, in what way did he pose a credible threat to public safety at that time?
Near as I can tell, in a worst case scenario of another bomb being out there, he could've killed a couple of people. If that's a matter of public safety in your book, then it's time to shut down traffic for good and collect every handgun out there, because they are a greater threat by far. Thought not. Don't make a 19 year old boy- killer or not- out to be Zeus come down from Olympus with a vengeance. The greatest credible threat was the adrenaline in a ton of highly armed police.
Perspective. It matters. The West, TX plant, that was a matter of public safety. You've set a standard for how to deal with such a thing (i.e. build schools and nursing homes around the threat, then let it keep operating without even qualifying for a licence, let alone having one). West was a dozen dead and several blocks destroyed. Boston was fewer dead, fewer injured, and no serious building damage. Not a public safety emergency.
Boston was bad, but that's no reason to lose your cool or your perspective.
IWYW,
— Aswad.
|
|
|
|
