Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

Really? I didn't know that. Of course, I only payed attention to the part where they caught him.

That's for a court to decide, not you or I. If a court has already decided that that speech is equivalent to threatening someone's life, then he should be arrested for it, but I doubt any court has found that.

Gates was causing a disturbance (which it turns out he had the right to). This guy is also a part of a disturbance, but it's a permitted one (I'm sure, since the whole crowd wasn't arrested).

Same issue, similar concerns, but different situation, so different conclusions for different parties. Incidentally, it does make me wonder why so many of you take issue with this guy and not the Gates.

I think you mean consistent. And I think I am. One was in a heated situation with police officers, pursuing them and making a scene. The other appears to be calmly standing by the road. Yes, there's a heated topic, and yes, his opinion is obviously a controvercial one, but he's not even close to breaking any laws and no one there really looks agitated. It's a short jump from Gates's attitude to violence (what we would all call 'hot blood'). It's a long walk from this guy's to violence (what we would all call 'cold blood', and premeditated at that).

I honestly expected someone from the KKK or the like to have taken a shot at him by now. And I mean successfully (not neccessarily hit him, but actually get to taking a shot), not a plot foiled several weeks before it was planned to be committed.

 

The whole crowd wan't brandishing weapons, hence they wouldn't be arrested.

 

You're consistently confused NOG. On the one hand you say that Gates, only because he was angry, was supposedly even unarmed so dangerous as to justify a police intervention - even though so Gates did not imply threats of violence (like, say, shedding the blood of 'tyrants'), much unlike the guy here. On the other hand you say that an armed man, who is making an overt statement on politically motivated violence, merely innocently exercises his right of free speech, which isn't dangerous because he is calm, and never mind the gun. What a nonsense.

No, it is not a long walk for a calm man to violence, and that assertion is perhaps the silliest aspect of your post. For our guy here it's simply about bending and then moving his arms to the ankles to grab his gun. So he was calm? Ideologically driven criminals, like McVeigh, are quite often cold blooded, and I fail to see that as anything that speaks in their favour, and in particular it is not something that makes them any less dangerous, to the contrary. Dr. Tillers murderer was calm, but he had a gun and murderous intent. Roeder pretty much is a perfect example for right wing perpetrators of politically motivated acts of violence.

You're placing an undue (and arbitrary) emphasis on the visible state of mind and selectively over- or underrate the the danger potential in a given situation, depending on what result you want to have in the end. Forget about 'potential dangers', what counts, and I tried to drive that down to you in the Gates thread already, are actual capabilities and probabilities. In my country it is a misdemeanour to be armed at a demonstration, and punishable with up to one year in jail. The reason for that is the greatly heightened escalation potential of armed demonstrators. That certainly doesn't infringe on the right of free speech. It is one thing to wield that shield, that's free speech. It's something else to wield it armed. All that being armed adds to the content is that it turns the statement into something implicitly threatening.

Arguably a man with a gun is abstractly more dangerous than an unarmed man. That is not because he is calm or angry, but because he is armed. Making an approving statement on murdering 'tyrants' (i.e. Obama), calm appearance notwithstanding, does hint towards about anything else but inner peace - a point that cannot have crossed your mind when you say 'calm, guy good - Gates mad, bad' ... When comparing the dangerousness of our man with the gun and Gates you get it exactly backwards.

 

Neither was he. His weapon was firmly located in it's holster where it belonged the whole time. Remember, Blades, he has the right to carry it like that, and to speak at the same time.

Yes, Ragusa, I put more weight on attitude (does that count as an action?) than on words. A man can come right up to my face and tell me he hopes I get run over by a car, and as long as he's calm and casual about it, I won't suspect any violence is impending. On the other hand, that same man can walk up to me, breathing heavy, with a red face, eyes glacing, in an obviously combative mood, and not say a word and he'll put me on edge. That's not nonsense, that's reality.

I was speaking psychologically, not literally.

I never said it was impossible, just less likely. How many people worldwide do you think become idealogically upset about something every day? And how many go out and kill someone over it? Now how many get emotionally agry every day? And how many of them go out and kill someone over it? I don't know specific numbers, but I'll bet the latter beats the former by at least 500% probability. As many people have noted, killing someone in 'hot blood' is almost natural to humans, while killing someone in 'cold blood' takes a lot of guts, wherewithal, and usually training.

That is a blatant lie, Ragusa. I expected better than that from you. If you can't see the legitimate difference between a calm man and an agry one, then you're completely blind to human nature. The angry man is massively more likely to cause violence than even an armed man expressing a pseudo-threat (via sign) who is calmly chatting up his neighbor.

The other huge difference between this guy and Gates is the level of control. Gates was pissed, just came out of his house, and was following the officer. That's a borderline threat right there (armed or not, remember the human body is a deadly weapon). On the other hand, this guy was calmly standing still, had been for some time, his weapon was clearly visible, and it looked to me like both hands were occupied. For a threat to manifest from Gates would only take a split second and wouldn't be too surprising considering his attitude. For a threat to manifest from this guy would take several seconds and would manifest from cold blood, which would be surprising.


To make this perfectly clear, I'm not saying this guy's actions were smart, or that I would hope anyone would emulate him, just that they were legitimate and within his rights (especially now that we know he was some distance away from the Pres). I'm also saying that, yes, attitude make a much better predictor than statement about future action, especially immediate future action.

 

No it is not a lie. It is what to me you appear to be doing. As far as threat potential is concerned you just don't get it and keep chasing your tail (not just on this matter). The impression I got is that you have your opinion and formulate your argument to support it, maybe not consciously, but you keep doing it anyway. Point in case to me were for instance your peculiar elaborations on Hitler and Stalin and the churches in support of your views on atheism.

Assuming arbitrariness, and by implication sloppy reasoning, offers at least an explanation for the way you make your arguments. Find me a better one ... in the meanwhile I'll use this as my working hypothesis. Anyway, that doesn't mean you're a bad person or that I don't like you. It just means that your arguments are often breathtakingly unpersuasive.

Which is perfectly reasonable only to the extent in which attitudes do manifest themselves in actual behaviour, and to the extent in which behaviour gives away intentions. You cannot argue that through the absence of being mad the guy with the gun and the shield was not dangerous, or that he was less dangerous than Gates. As I said, the shield and the gun speak volumes about attitude.

I still don't see why Gate's attitude could manifest itself in harm to Crowley in a split second, whereas in the case of the armed man with the shield something like that can not be the case. How do you come to that conclusion? There is nothing that make either possibility less likely; there is just your assertion, that you pull out of your hat like a white rabbit, that states that Gates was more dangerous because he was mad at Crowley. Amen. You certainly don't lack certainty. That's what I meant with 'arbitrary' assertions, and, again, I don't buy it.

 

You both should read this. Must-read column from one of my favorite conservative columnists, David Frum, on this very subject.

One of the best, most intellectually-honest columns I've seen in a while. Everyone should read this.

 

I dislike David Frum and his political views. But I give him (a) that he's not dumb and (b) this column of his is spot on.

Thanks for the Link DR.

 

Yes, good link, DR. It's "spot on."

 

I said that because there was nothing 'arbitrary' about my assignment of value to state-of-mind over weapon availability, something any psychologist on earth would support, as would most any cop or person with experience with security. Killing someone in cold blood isn't an easy thing for anyone outside of a sociopath, no matter what the TV may tell you. Killing someone in hot blood (the opposite), on the other hand, accounts for the vast majority of murders in any nation that keeps statistics in the world. Millions of people in the US have ready access to guns. Most of them are probably quite intellectually upset about something or other at some point in their lives (with access to guns). The vast majority of them don't shoot anyone. On the other hand, thousands of husbands, fathers, friends, brothers, maybe even wives and sisters, get emotionally upset about something and end up beating someone with their bare fists every year, and plenty of them end up sending people to the hospital or the morgue. My placement of risk and value on psychological condition over weapon availability is based on the real world.

I find it hard to believe you could look at that and honestly call it 'arbitrary'. Because of that, I called it a lie; because I didn't think you could reasonably believe that. If you honestly did, I admit to being mistaken about that, but also about you.

And what makes you think my opinion on Stalin and Atheism was arbitrary? I'll admit it wasn't the sole driving factor, and it wasn't even what drove him to violence, but I still contend it is what drove him to target religious groups for his oppression. (Mind you, theism has similarly driven many religious folk to target particular people for their otherwise-inspired violence.) There's nothing arbitrary about my positions, Ragusa.

... Yes, I think. Because attitudes almost always manifest themselves in behavior of one kind or another, though I'm not sure where intent came along.

Shield? What shield? I didn't see a shield. Unless you mean his sign? The paper construction with what looks like it may be a single strap of wood, maybe two, on the back to hold it straight? Also, I'm not saying he wasn't dangerous, just a lot lower on the danger scale than someone who's visibly lost control of his temper. Lastly, remember that that guy didn't just have a gun, he has a holster with a safety strap that was securing the gun. It wouldn't take just a split second for him to pull that gun, and I don't think anyone else in the crowd could pull it before he could interfere, either.

For a better example, imagine if someone right next to that man had, as the President came into view, charged through the line ranting about the Second Hitler and the Antichrist, and began to converge on the President's vehicle. He has no weapon visible, isn't even wearing clothing that could conceal much in the way of weaponry, and his hands are busily pumping the air with threatening and rude gestures. The police would have rushed him, tackled him, and taken him to jail. On the other hand, a calm protestor with a gun strapped to his leg and a potentially threatening sign is let stay, as long as he's an appropriate distance away. If that doesn't tell you something about the differences in threat levels of the two, you're not paying attention.

... Tell me you're joking. You don't see how a pissed-off man moving toward the target of his anger is more threatening than a man standing calmly on the sidelines? The difference is mindset, attitude, temper. The one is primed for violence (whether he chooses to act on it or not), adrenaline is pumping through his system, his heart is racing, and his temperature is rising. That's something we all know as 'fight of flight', and guess which he's moving toward. The other is standing still, with no adrenaline, a stable heartbeat, and the only thing his temperature is reacting to is air temperature. There is no 'fight or flight' situation. If he chooses to act on violence, he does so by his own will, which is much less likely to happen.

Now, there's one other thing I would like to ask you, Ragusa. I seem to remember that you are a lawyer in Germany (and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that). Are you criminal or civil (or is there a different distinction in Germany)? What I mean is, do you cover things like murders, muggings, thefts, etc. or things like contract law? If you cover violent crimes, or know anything about those who do, how often do you see people coming in accused of violent crimes where they acted with premeditation and without immediate provocation, what we call 'cold blood' (at least in the US), and how often do you see people in those cases accused of acting in a violent rage, in the 'heat of the moment', in 'hot blood'?



DR:
I agree, the article is good, and it spells out well the feeding frenzy that some pundits are driving with their hate-mongering, but you can't arrest people for speaking like that. Likewise, you can't arrest people for owning or even carrying a gun (what's this shield Ragusa is talking about, I only see the sign). You can, on the other hand, arrest people for bringing those guns onto school property. We are a nation of laws, and people who break those laws should be punished. On the other hand, people who don't break those laws shouldn't be.

 

We are a nation of laws. But not Black and White laws. Laws are interpreted to the situation. If you bring a gun and a sign like his, to a location known to be where the President is about to show, your intent is more than obvious and action should be taken by law enforcement to stop it.

 

@ Nog,

I did not argue - nor did the article - that people shouldn't speak their mind or carry guns (properly licensed, of course) nor should they be arrested for either. The point of the article is that this hysterical right-wing rhetoric is calling some members of this segment of our population to arms (if not explicitly, implicitly) based on thoroughly inaccurate language. I can't tell you how irresponsible that is. All for what seems to be little more than a cynical ploy for ratings and votes. The fact is, bringing weapons to these rallies is now being actively encouraged by some of these groups, and they're also the ones who take the hysterics seriously. This is becoming a powder keg.

I would be worried about anyone packing at these events, for any reason. A gun-carrier who honestly believes that Obama is a grandma-killing Nazi isn't any less worrisome to me just because he's a perfectly law-abiding citizen. If someone is deluded enough to believe his way of life is in danger (and many of these people do), then all bets are off.

 

DR, I see your point, but I'm making the point for people like Blades who apparently did want this guy arrested.

Blades, the laws are interpreted on the spot, yes, but they're still rather clear and distinct. A safety perimeter was established around the President's course (was it 1K feet of 1K yards?). That safety perimeter was designed to include possibilities like people with guns and probably molotov cocktails as well. This guy did not violate that perimeter. Therefore, he did not pose a significant threat to the president.

Now, if he had been standing 5 feet away from where the president was going to be, I'd definitely agree he should be moved back, by force if necessary; but only because the perimeter was piss-poor and needed to be expanded.

 

I don't think he should have been arrested* either, but I do think he should have been asked to leave and allowed to return only if he took his weapon home. If he refused, then he should have been arrested. There is no logical reason to pack heat at a town hall event (where plenty of police will obviously already be present), unless you're trying to make a statement by doing so.

* Just for carrying the gun, that is. That combined with his idiotic sign was certainly reason for concern.

 

NOG - What I am saying is that it shouldn't be cut and dry. The SS or the FBI should be allowed to override any Freedom if they feel that individual is putting the safety of the President at risk. What's makes 1,000 feet the rule? Do you know if that is the actual distance your allowed to possess a handgun around President by law or are you just speculating? I would think you shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE near him. If the event is taking place in an area larger than that minimum 1,000 yards, the range should be extended, immensely. Like not allowed in the same town. If the President is showing up in your town, why do you need to be carrying a gun? Like there's not enough Security around for your protection??? Since he was cited as being at the rally, he should be included.

 

It was at a school. The 1,000 feet was required because it was on school grounds. It had nothing to do with the location of the President.

 

So, is there a limit on how far away you need to be from the President when carrying? I would think there is, otherwise you could walk right up to him and fire away. Hence, any knucklehead who is not part of the President's Security team, who knowingly brings a handgun to a location that he knows the President is enroute to should be detained as a threat to the President. There would only be one reason to be carrying that handgun in those circumstances and it's not a good one.

 

I have no idea what is required around the President, I was just giving info on why the guy was required to stay 1,000 feet away.

There is a huge gap between what is legal and what is smart. This guy may have been legal....

 

Yes, but I imagine it isn't codified. My father played Clarinet in the Army band, and because they regularly performed on the white house lawn, he needed a presidential clearance. For those that aren't aware, a presidential clearance requires the same background check they give government agents and military intelligence officials -- and changing a presidential clearance into a Top Secret clearance is a simple matter of paperwork. It took a friend of mine all of 5 minutes to have his clearance changed from Presidential to Top Secret with SCI access. If they are that cautious with clarinetists, you can bet your balls they'll be even more cautious with uncleared civilians.

 

I think there may be some misunderstanding, and it may be on my part (though I don't think so, obviously). I understood that he wasn't 1K feet away from the school and meeting, but from the route the President was taking to the meeting, in which case it was determined by the SS on the spot for that particular situation. Meaning, yes, the SS had the right to supercede citizens' freedoms not just to carry a gun, but to access public land, in order to preserve the President's safety. Not only did they have the right, but they used it, and this was the result. He most definitely was not at the rally, as he would have been arrested for having a gun on school grounds at that point.

As for the President's safety limit, I'm pretty sure it's handled on a case-by-case basis, exactly like this.

 

The distance away was determined by the sheriff's office based on local regulations -- nothing to do with the President's visit (the law, that is). Look back through the news reports.