zxcvbob
Member
Finally a voice of reason. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Bob
Possesion of a hoax device a criminal offense?
- Thread starter walking arsenal
- Start date
- Status
Finally a voice of reason. No, I'm not being sarcastic.
Bob
jaholder1971
Member
There's a big difference between a screenprinted picture of a bomb or a blinking Xmas tree pin and a collection of electronic parts, battery and clay all tied up together.
Sheesh, start using your heads, people!
Sheesh, start using your heads, people!
I'm going to have to say this again. The cops acted correctly. But for those of you who suggest "rendering them inert" on sight you're in for a big mistake.
Situation: I'm wearing my peace through superior firepower shirt. I reach for my wallet but you think I'm reaching for a gun. You shot me. Good job, you go to jail.
Situation: I'm walking around with a memory stick hanging out of my book. Oh no! It's a bomb, two to the chest one to the head. Right. Have fun explaining that one to the judge.
Oh yeah, don't go to the airport bathroom, use the stall, and tap your foot.
Situation: I'm wearing my peace through superior firepower shirt. I reach for my wallet but you think I'm reaching for a gun. You shot me. Good job, you go to jail.
Situation: I'm walking around with a memory stick hanging out of my book. Oh no! It's a bomb, two to the chest one to the head. Right. Have fun explaining that one to the judge.
Oh yeah, don't go to the airport bathroom, use the stall, and tap your foot.
Wes Janson
Member
- Joined
- May 12, 2006
- Messages
- 1,962
For the last time: has any news source actually SHOWN the "clay-like substance" she was supposedly carrying? Sorry to be cynical, but I'd like some sort of proof that what she had could actually be reasonably construed as threatening, and not just an after-thought rationale for their action. Keep in mind the stories reported here regarding ATF raids on "ammunition stockpiles", and how the media tends to exaggerate by using loaded words.
Part of the fundamental debate here seems to be the question of what one expects to see in the surrounding environment. If you expect to see suicide bombers, you're going to jump at anything that looks remotely threatening, as they did today. But if you expect to see people, some normal and some not, going about their everyday business, then it requires someone to present a clear threat before eliciting a response. The simple fact is that regardless of how much the media hypes terrorism, the odds that some girl walking around with a circuit board on her shirt is actually a suicide bomber, are astronomical.
Part of the fundamental debate here seems to be the question of what one expects to see in the surrounding environment. If you expect to see suicide bombers, you're going to jump at anything that looks remotely threatening, as they did today. But if you expect to see people, some normal and some not, going about their everyday business, then it requires someone to present a clear threat before eliciting a response. The simple fact is that regardless of how much the media hypes terrorism, the odds that some girl walking around with a circuit board on her shirt is actually a suicide bomber, are astronomical.
On September 10, 2001 the odds of 19 people taking control of airliners and turning them into field expedient cruise missiles were pretty astronomical too.
Jeff
Nathaniel Firethorn
Member
One thing's for sure: Al Qaeda has seen this and is taking notes.
- NF
- NF
Cellar Dweller
Member
Yes, the price of confusion just dropped from $15 (Lite Brite) to about $6 (breadboard + LEDs + 10 minutes labor).
Yes, terrorists conceal bombs, at least until one doesn't. Then the ROE changes again.
Yes, some day a student or grandmother will be killed over a harmless device thought to be an IED, and the ROE will change again.
The real issue is that the terrorists are winning. How? They have most of the sheep terrorized, and that includes the police.
Say some Al Queda guy did actually blow himself up in the airport some day. And killed ten people.
We have 50,000 people dead on our highways every year. Are we cowering in our houses, afraid to go out, calling the police when we see a car?
Terrorism works ONLY because the press blows it all out of proportion. A small but nasty crime is magnified to control a large population. Fighting back against terrorism doesn't mean stationing a hundred thousand cops everywhere that we go in public. That is a police state. For the tens of billions we spend on the rent-a-cops at airports, we could put that money towards actually doing investigation and legwork on known and suspected terrorists.
You can't guard everywhere. The terrorists aren't going to do the same thing twice. They did box-cutters on a plane for 9/11. That worked once, they would be stupid to try again. If the security goes up at the airports, they'll poison a waterworks. You can't guard everywhere all the time.
For all the talk of the "sheep" from people on the board, a lot of you sound like sheep yourselves.
Say some Al Queda guy did actually blow himself up in the airport some day. And killed ten people.
We have 50,000 people dead on our highways every year. Are we cowering in our houses, afraid to go out, calling the police when we see a car?
Terrorism works ONLY because the press blows it all out of proportion. A small but nasty crime is magnified to control a large population. Fighting back against terrorism doesn't mean stationing a hundred thousand cops everywhere that we go in public. That is a police state. For the tens of billions we spend on the rent-a-cops at airports, we could put that money towards actually doing investigation and legwork on known and suspected terrorists.
You can't guard everywhere. The terrorists aren't going to do the same thing twice. They did box-cutters on a plane for 9/11. That worked once, they would be stupid to try again. If the security goes up at the airports, they'll poison a waterworks. You can't guard everywhere all the time.
For all the talk of the "sheep" from people on the board, a lot of you sound like sheep yourselves.
D.Parker, in response to: http://thehighroad.org/showpost.php?p=3738503&postcount=50
You apparently don't remember the days of LED t-shirts..... and yes, I am making that comparison. My point is, did it matter if it was on her shirt? Last time this happened the devices (which ironically were ALSO LED's with a battery and a basic circuit board) were NOT on shirts. The logical leap being made these days by Boston police is "If I can see a circuit board and wires ----> it's a bomb." My point is, where does it end? Can we no longer walk around with DIY electronics projects? LED tshirts like I remember from the early 90's (or maybe it was late 80's).... etc. Is that freedom? is this really making us more safe?
Not to mention, if she was a terrorist, do you really think she's going to walk into the airport with the device in plain view... and then ask questions.... wait for a flight to arrive.... (not detonating anything the whole time).... and when the police arrive not detonate the device (if it were a bomb... that is).??? That just doesn't follow logically for me.
This happened in Boston. It also happened in Boston a few months ago. So YES, after the last time, I would have hoped the cops would have learned something.
I never said that? My only point was that I haven't seen it. In fact, I directly acknowledged the fact that there was putty. I just said I haven't seen a photo of it.
That doesn't really make sense though. If it were a bomb, have half of it concealed and the other half exposed? Wouldn't it make more sense if it were a bomb and she wanted to conceal it for the whole thing to be concealed.... or if she wanted to scare people for the whole thing to be exposed?
Might as well carry our guns concealed under our shirts, but make sure our shirts are translucent. Just like we always say, "Concealed means concealed."
Sure it's possible there could have been something more under her shirt, but it doesn't seem to make much sense either way for that to be the case......
Jittery would maybe be ok.... but they were talking about how close they were to killing her. So yes.... moronic is the proper term for their reaction IMO.
Again... coming back to the fact that this JUST HAPPENED a few months ago.
Also, as an aside, it is a shame you didn't spend your youth hanging around radio shack. You missed out on a lot of fun.
8:20 PM is morning? j/k
Although, let's not try to insult each other either shall we? I'm not a mod, but I've noticed in other threads you tend to throw out insults pretty liberally at others. There's no need for it really. For a fair amount of your 18 posts to be comprised largely of insults just seems.... well... high. It's not really my business though.
Lastly, would you still think this was hilarious had the Boston police killed her? I hope not. That's really what this comes down to for me.
Had they just stopped her to see what the device was and make sure..... ok
Had they detained her..... ok
Had they charged her with disturbing the peace.... ok
But coming close to killing her..... not ok.
You apparently don't remember the days of LED t-shirts..... and yes, I am making that comparison. My point is, did it matter if it was on her shirt? Last time this happened the devices (which ironically were ALSO LED's with a battery and a basic circuit board) were NOT on shirts. The logical leap being made these days by Boston police is "If I can see a circuit board and wires ----> it's a bomb." My point is, where does it end? Can we no longer walk around with DIY electronics projects? LED tshirts like I remember from the early 90's (or maybe it was late 80's).... etc. Is that freedom? is this really making us more safe?
Not to mention, if she was a terrorist, do you really think she's going to walk into the airport with the device in plain view... and then ask questions.... wait for a flight to arrive.... (not detonating anything the whole time).... and when the police arrive not detonate the device (if it were a bomb... that is).??? That just doesn't follow logically for me.
This happened in Boston. It also happened in Boston a few months ago. So YES, after the last time, I would have hoped the cops would have learned something.
I never said that? My only point was that I haven't seen it. In fact, I directly acknowledged the fact that there was putty. I just said I haven't seen a photo of it.
That doesn't really make sense though. If it were a bomb, have half of it concealed and the other half exposed? Wouldn't it make more sense if it were a bomb and she wanted to conceal it for the whole thing to be concealed.... or if she wanted to scare people for the whole thing to be exposed?
Might as well carry our guns concealed under our shirts, but make sure our shirts are translucent. Just like we always say, "Concealed means concealed."
Sure it's possible there could have been something more under her shirt, but it doesn't seem to make much sense either way for that to be the case......
Jittery would maybe be ok.... but they were talking about how close they were to killing her. So yes.... moronic is the proper term for their reaction IMO.
Again... coming back to the fact that this JUST HAPPENED a few months ago.
Also, as an aside, it is a shame you didn't spend your youth hanging around radio shack. You missed out on a lot of fun.
8:20 PM is morning? j/k
Although, let's not try to insult each other either shall we? I'm not a mod, but I've noticed in other threads you tend to throw out insults pretty liberally at others. There's no need for it really. For a fair amount of your 18 posts to be comprised largely of insults just seems.... well... high. It's not really my business though.
Lastly, would you still think this was hilarious had the Boston police killed her? I hope not. That's really what this comes down to for me.
Had they just stopped her to see what the device was and make sure..... ok
Had they detained her..... ok
Had they charged her with disturbing the peace.... ok
But coming close to killing her..... not ok.
dstorm1911
Member
DPARKER,
"What's funny it that you say that even after someone posted a photo of a nut-job who did exactly the opposite.
The foolishness of some of these commentaries would also be funny, if it weren't so sad."
Ya might wanna get your fact straight partner, that picture is of a pizza shop owner who was delivering a pizza, he was abducted at gun point in a remote location where the abducters attached the bomb to his neck and chest.. he was then given a very strict set of written instructions if he deviated from the instructions he would die as the low powered bomb would kill him, part of those instructions was to rob a bank he was then to take the $$ to a specific location... he robbed the bank he was attempting to get help from the cops when the low powered bomb detonated killing him.............. so what kinda "nut job" was he? it had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever it was a bank robbery by proxie and even then the abducters attempted to desquise the bomb as some form of neck/back brace otherwise they would not have bothered with a T-shirt trying to cover it now would they????
Ya know some folks here are so great at taking a simple picture and placing it 100% out of context then someone else see's it and "yep that must be a nutjob terrorist" ............... And then we'll all complain because the media gets ahold of a picture of your gun collection and with no further info needed they label ya as a domestic terrorist bent on stockpiling weapons for your terrorist activities......... And yea that P#SSES me the h#ll off just like it should you IF ya weren't so busy doin the exact same thing yourself......
And Dparker yes ya hit the nail on the head "The foolishness of some of these commentaries would also be funny, if it weren't so sad."
Yours made without you having ANY info other than a picture is a perfect example of that foolishness partner........ BTW the case that picture is from wasn't just viewed by law enforcement instructors etc... it was highly publicized and has been featured on Americas most wanted several times so there really is no excuse for what that picture really represents being taken so far outa context.........
BTW, MODS this reply is in a direct response to Dparkers comments directed at me above... and regarding his rational for those comments
Ya know I REALLY hate to say it but based on some of the comments posted in this thread I am really starting to see the point behind stricter control of handguns...... Or at least a vast modification to the requirements in order to obtain a CCW as many in this thread have demonstrated an very definite willingness to jump right to the use of deadly force lacking any formal training regarding actual threat recognition and proper levels of reaction to what might or might not be a real threat, perhaps a Phyc based questionair needs to be added to determine proper threat recognition versus reaction? Long guns aren't so much an issue as these same persons could easily be recognized as being armed if carrying a rifle the ones I worry about are those who feel they are justified to simply draw and fire based on a girls choice of attire............... the really sad part is I would very likally oppose such a requirement even though I know from comments above it would be safer for citizens if such a requirement were in place talk about a catch 22 RKABA versus the safty of kids who don't think before getting dressed in the morning........ man I'm glad I have not let terrorist corrupt my brain to a point that I can't go out in public without feeling a need to start shooting cause some kid tore his MP3 player apart and has it held together with wires and tape etc.... when I get to that point I'd probably be bettwe off lettin em win 100% and just put the muzzle to my own head cause while I live everyday paying attention to my surroundings I have not (even after 35 years in the business of defense) gotten anywhere near that point of fear that the kids of this country need to fear me as they go about their daily lives doing the dumb cr@p kids will do....... SAD folks
"What's funny it that you say that even after someone posted a photo of a nut-job who did exactly the opposite.
The foolishness of some of these commentaries would also be funny, if it weren't so sad."
Ya might wanna get your fact straight partner, that picture is of a pizza shop owner who was delivering a pizza, he was abducted at gun point in a remote location where the abducters attached the bomb to his neck and chest.. he was then given a very strict set of written instructions if he deviated from the instructions he would die as the low powered bomb would kill him, part of those instructions was to rob a bank he was then to take the $$ to a specific location... he robbed the bank he was attempting to get help from the cops when the low powered bomb detonated killing him.............. so what kinda "nut job" was he? it had nothing to do with terrorism whatsoever it was a bank robbery by proxie and even then the abducters attempted to desquise the bomb as some form of neck/back brace otherwise they would not have bothered with a T-shirt trying to cover it now would they????
Ya know some folks here are so great at taking a simple picture and placing it 100% out of context then someone else see's it and "yep that must be a nutjob terrorist" ............... And then we'll all complain because the media gets ahold of a picture of your gun collection and with no further info needed they label ya as a domestic terrorist bent on stockpiling weapons for your terrorist activities......... And yea that P#SSES me the h#ll off just like it should you IF ya weren't so busy doin the exact same thing yourself......
And Dparker yes ya hit the nail on the head "The foolishness of some of these commentaries would also be funny, if it weren't so sad."
Yours made without you having ANY info other than a picture is a perfect example of that foolishness partner........ BTW the case that picture is from wasn't just viewed by law enforcement instructors etc... it was highly publicized and has been featured on Americas most wanted several times so there really is no excuse for what that picture really represents being taken so far outa context.........
BTW, MODS this reply is in a direct response to Dparkers comments directed at me above... and regarding his rational for those comments
Ya know I REALLY hate to say it but based on some of the comments posted in this thread I am really starting to see the point behind stricter control of handguns...... Or at least a vast modification to the requirements in order to obtain a CCW as many in this thread have demonstrated an very definite willingness to jump right to the use of deadly force lacking any formal training regarding actual threat recognition and proper levels of reaction to what might or might not be a real threat, perhaps a Phyc based questionair needs to be added to determine proper threat recognition versus reaction? Long guns aren't so much an issue as these same persons could easily be recognized as being armed if carrying a rifle the ones I worry about are those who feel they are justified to simply draw and fire based on a girls choice of attire............... the really sad part is I would very likally oppose such a requirement even though I know from comments above it would be safer for citizens if such a requirement were in place talk about a catch 22 RKABA versus the safty of kids who don't think before getting dressed in the morning........ man I'm glad I have not let terrorist corrupt my brain to a point that I can't go out in public without feeling a need to start shooting cause some kid tore his MP3 player apart and has it held together with wires and tape etc.... when I get to that point I'd probably be bettwe off lettin em win 100% and just put the muzzle to my own head cause while I live everyday paying attention to my surroundings I have not (even after 35 years in the business of defense) gotten anywhere near that point of fear that the kids of this country need to fear me as they go about their daily lives doing the dumb cr@p kids will do....... SAD folks
Last edited:
Jeff, that's a fair point I'll admit. Although, I think we all would agree that while it's extremely important to be vigilant, it's equally important not to overreact.
The terrorists wanted to scare the crap out of us and make us scurry about in a frenzy. Unfortunately, we've been doing just that since 9/11.
The authorities apparently need better training to help avoid these types of incidents. The public does too, although I haven't a clue how that would come about.
What's most striking, is that this is the second event of this type with a similar set of facts in the same place in a very short period of time.
I just would have expected by now the Boston authorities would be better able to quickly distinguish between "LED flashy thing" and "bomb".
Of course, I do realize had it really been a bomb, and they had not reacted with enough alarm, then we'd all be jumping down their throats too.
There is definitely a middle ground to be had though.
dstorm1911
Member
I should clarify a little bit, I've spent pretty much my entire life involved heavily in weapons and the use of as well as training PROFESSIONALS in the use of, I've worked as a LEO with Oregon State as well as 9 years in the Army, tought at one of the largest training centers in the country which is not restricted to just LEO or military....
IF I witnessed some of the members here reacting in the manner they have stated they would react here with them NOT wearing a uniform or any other readily visible credentials of LEO status with a weapon pointed at a young girl whos threat status is totally subject to interpretation I would react to the threat which does not require any interpretation the individual with his weapon drawn on the girl would not recieve ANY verbal warning at all as this might cause him to discharge the weapon instead I would attempt to gain a low quartering position which would result in the least likaly chance of the 165 grn .40 cal Talon HP hitting any bystanders as it passed through that individuals skull and brain hopefully shutting down all motor ability instantly this is why I would be looking for an upward angled shot placement taking out the brainstem and left frontal lob if at all possible.......... in order to gain the best chance of preventing a nervouse system discharge of that persons weapon......
The girls threat status would be determined AFTER the imediate threat had been dealt with in order to prevent him from shooting her and then turning his weapon on others in the area including myself........ Ya will find this is also how any other LEO will react to the same scenario if the happened upon one of the members a civilian with a drawn weapon pointed at another civilian with no clear and obvious weapon...... thats why when ya take your CCW class the instructor (if he/she is even marginally competent) will stress that you are only legally allowed to draw your weapon in the face of a clear and obvious threat to your life or the lives of others... your not a LEO, ya do not get to go drawing down on lil girls cause they scare you unless they are clearly declaring they are a threat to you........ bad choice in fashion is not a justifiable cause
I would suspect many would also be found in the fantasy SHTF threads just hopeing for an opportunity to don their BDUs and grab their ARs or AKs and head out.......... at least thats the visual image I get reading some of the comments posted to this thread....
IF I witnessed some of the members here reacting in the manner they have stated they would react here with them NOT wearing a uniform or any other readily visible credentials of LEO status with a weapon pointed at a young girl whos threat status is totally subject to interpretation I would react to the threat which does not require any interpretation the individual with his weapon drawn on the girl would not recieve ANY verbal warning at all as this might cause him to discharge the weapon instead I would attempt to gain a low quartering position which would result in the least likaly chance of the 165 grn .40 cal Talon HP hitting any bystanders as it passed through that individuals skull and brain hopefully shutting down all motor ability instantly this is why I would be looking for an upward angled shot placement taking out the brainstem and left frontal lob if at all possible.......... in order to gain the best chance of preventing a nervouse system discharge of that persons weapon......
The girls threat status would be determined AFTER the imediate threat had been dealt with in order to prevent him from shooting her and then turning his weapon on others in the area including myself........ Ya will find this is also how any other LEO will react to the same scenario if the happened upon one of the members a civilian with a drawn weapon pointed at another civilian with no clear and obvious weapon...... thats why when ya take your CCW class the instructor (if he/she is even marginally competent) will stress that you are only legally allowed to draw your weapon in the face of a clear and obvious threat to your life or the lives of others... your not a LEO, ya do not get to go drawing down on lil girls cause they scare you unless they are clearly declaring they are a threat to you........ bad choice in fashion is not a justifiable cause
I would suspect many would also be found in the fantasy SHTF threads just hopeing for an opportunity to don their BDUs and grab their ARs or AKs and head out.......... at least thats the visual image I get reading some of the comments posted to this thread....
I not only remember them, I also recall that they didn't involve an exposed large-ish cirtcuit board, wiring and battery. Just the lights. Those days were also before 2001.
Then you ought to re-think the matter a bit. It's a bad comparison.
I guess not. It could have been strapped to her waist, pants, a hat...whatever. So what?
How did you manage to read my statement as "bombs only appear on shirts"?
No. The assumption is, "That's a highly unusual thing to see on someone's person, and certainly could be an explosive device." Don't assume that others aren't capable of more nuanced thinking just because you aren't.
Of course you can. Just don't be stupid about it.
Do you live in some fantasy world where everyone behaves in a sane, rational manner?
Learned what? To ignore suspicious-looking things just because the last one turned out to be a stupid publicity stunt? Yeah, that'd be the way to go.
See my previous question about the fantasy world you seem to inhabit. Also, have someone explain the expression "Monday morning quarterback" to you.
It also doesn't make much sense to walk into an airport - post 9/11 - with exposed wiring and a power source attached to the front of your shirt. Oh well.
Did they shoot her? What they said was that she was "extremely lucky she followed the instructions or deadly force would have been used". You seem to think that the cops should assume that everyone behaves intelligently and rationally, so all they had to do was give her instructions. If she's intelligent and rational, she follows them. If she resists, runs, etc...then clearly she's not rational, and all bets are off. Right?
You can't have it both ways.
And the response then was correct as well.
[/QUOTE]Also, as an aside, it is a shame you didn't spend your youth hanging around radio shack. You missed out on a lot of fun.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, silly me. I was too busy getting laid.
That means a lot coming from someone who's calling Boston cops a bunch of morons. Of course, that's easy to do because they're not here to respond, right? When I tell someone that they've said/done something dumb, it's always because...well...they have. AND they can respond if they want.
Asolutely nothing I've said gives you any reason at all to ask that.
Yeah, my bad. I confused it with a different incident that I was recalling.
But, the point being...insane people do insane things. To bet your life and the lives of others on the assumption that everyone is rational is itself a form of insanity.
The remainder of your rant was fairly incoherent, and just gave me a headache.
There are companies that sell simulated explosive devices and components as training aids to law enforcement agencies. Here are a few examples of components that are based on real bombs that have been dealt with in the past:
http://www.letargets.com/html/popups3/ed-126.html
http://www.letargets.com/html/popups3/ed-81.html
http://www.letargets.com/html/popups3/ed-27.html
http://www.letargets.com/html/popups3/ed-24.html
All pretty ordinary, every-day electronics really.
jefnvk
Member
Funny thing is, I went through Boston with such a device in March. My laptop power connector broke, so I soldered two wires directly to the motherboard, hung them outside my laptop with a female coax DC coupler on the end. To complicate things further, my wi-fi card doesnt have a plastic housing, so it was bare circuit card hanging out the side.
The result? TSA asking me what the hell was going on, I explained that I was a poor student in a computer field, that instead of dropping a grand on a new laptop, I spent $5 to fix it, they looked at me funny, and sent me on my way.
Granted, it was in a case, where people couldn't see it, I wasn't running around with play-doh in my hand, or otherwise drawing attention to myself.
Ontario, CA on the other hand, wasn't too happy, but same result.
The difference? I didn't go into the airport looking pretty suspicious. I hear all the time how it is ridiculious that we are searching everyone, not just those that look like terrorist. Well, not we got someone that fits our perception of what a suicide bomber looks like, and it is turned around, that it isn't fair that this happened, cause while she looked like a bomber, or what we think of as a bomber, an electronics expert could tell that it wasn't harmful.
And yes, I ahve thought of the point that there are no wires VISIBALLY coming off, but then I noticed tape over the front of the breadboard, and realized they could easily be concealed.
dstorm1911
Member
DParker, ya know tryin to explain anything to you is VERY reminiscent of trying to explain RKABA to an Antigun fanatic....... very very similar and yet your comments are like a poster child for why handguns SHOULD be banned, funny isn't it, so did ya setup your New account here in an attempt to steer this thread in such a manner that it can be used by the Antigun crowd against gun owners intentionally or are you really so naive and in-experienced with the legal and proper use of weapons by civilians who posses them legally?
dstorm1911,
PM me or email me your credentials. Your posts don't match the experience you are claiming.
Jeff
PM me or email me your credentials. Your posts don't match the experience you are claiming.
Jeff
D. Parker,
Rather than counter your points, suffice it to say I disagree with a lot of them.
Since you seem unable to discuss the matter without trying to directly insult whomever disagrees with you, this is pointless.
I never called the Boston police morons. I said that their response, which they've stated almost included killing this girl, was moronic.
You on the other hand have so far flat out called me arrogant and stupid - multiple times. Also, the whole "geek" and "not getting laid" thing is fairly immature.
You've done the same to many others so far not only in this thread, but others. There's no reason why we can't all have a civil discussion about a particular news event without insulting each other.
Rather than counter your points, suffice it to say I disagree with a lot of them.
Since you seem unable to discuss the matter without trying to directly insult whomever disagrees with you, this is pointless.
I never called the Boston police morons. I said that their response, which they've stated almost included killing this girl, was moronic.
You on the other hand have so far flat out called me arrogant and stupid - multiple times. Also, the whole "geek" and "not getting laid" thing is fairly immature.
You've done the same to many others so far not only in this thread, but others. There's no reason why we can't all have a civil discussion about a particular news event without insulting each other.
alucard0822
Member
definitely good advice, but it is either complete irresponsibility, or amazing stupidity of her to put people in this position. I would think a similar, and hypothetical situation would be for someone to go walking into a liquor store with a ski mask and trench coat at 2am in a bad neighborhood, during the summer. They are not attempting to rob the place, and are not a real threat, but the cashier will no doubt think the are, and if a LEO is present they would undoubtedly act as if they were a threat until proven otherwise.
The news has no doubt left things out and added their spin, so basically who knows where that middle ground is. If she did indeed have a couple cans worth of play doh in her hands, coupled with a homemade electrical device , I would think it was not for some completely benign reason, basically like the Baltimore kid a few months back that "pranked" his buddy working at a convenience store and pretended to rob him, and didn't notice the cop a few isles over. needless to say, he is lucky to be alive, and only a convict.
they aren't exactly sending her to gitmo, more so they seem to be issuing a slap on the wrist and a stern and public "DON'T DO IT AGAIN"
There's a shock.
A compelling argument.
I haven't insulted "whomever disagrees with [me]". In fact, I've ignored most who don't agree with me.
Oh, well...that's not instulting at all, is it? Next you'll be asking what the meaning if "is" is.
Try pointing out what I've said to you that is any more insulting than saying what you've done/said is "moronic".
No. I said that the assertions you made were arrogant. If you're going to claim that "what they did was moronic" doesn't equal "they're morons" then you don't get to claim that "your assertion was arrogant" = "you're arrogant".
No, I haven't.
Who said anything about "not getting laid"? You really should invest a little more time and effort into your reading skills, and a little less into your hypersensitive need to read more into something than is there.
- Status