Difficult Civil Rights Question

[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.

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.

[DanaC]

If the KKK didn't make him swear an oath which runs contrary to his duties as a police officer then it wouldn't be valid. It isn't illegal to be racist. It isn't a reason for dismissal. He shouoldn't be dismissed for racism. He should be dismissed for taking an oath which runs contrary to his duties.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

He should be dismissed for taking an oath which runs contrary to his duties.

That he has done so is an unproven proposition. I don't think the oath quoted here makes the grade.

Originally Posted by The Oath

...will most zealously and valiantly shield and preserve by any and all justifiable means and methods...white supremacy...

Lots of loopholes in that one. On purpose I'm sure.

[Happy Monkey]

NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.

[Shawnee123]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.

Excellent point.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey

NAMBLA has a right to exist, but their members shouldn't be working in day care.

I was thinking along similar lines. Would this be a "difficult civil rights question" if the officer in question had joined NAMBLA? Their right to free speech has been supported by the ACLU, too.

[DanaC]

what is NAMBLA?

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by DanaC

what is NAMBLA?

A pedophile organization in the US.

That's paedophile, to you. :-)

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by MaggieL

A pedophile organization in the US.

That's paedophile, to you. :-)

(and not paediatrician)

[Aliantha]

Just to clarify things for those here who seem to have difficulties with simple comprehension, people may be of the same opinion but for different reasons Maggie. There are quite a substantial number who happen to agree with my perspective and yet more of the people who disagree have stated their reasons for doing so. I'm interested in knowing why.

Your attitude is offensive. I suggest you spend a bit more time in reality. Perhaps it'd teach you some common courtesy, or is it that your own sense of self worth is so low that you have to act with such condescension to boost yourself up a bit? Your posts attempt to ridicule and belittle anyone who disagrees with your point, and while this is your 'right' legally, it suggests that you have serious social issues which you should address.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by Aliantha

I suggest you spend a bit more time in reality.

I'd suggest you stop confusing your opinions with reality.

[Aliantha]

[DanaC]

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

[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? :-)