Passenger killed by air marshall

[Ed]

Firstly, you are helping yourself to the assumption the man actually claimed to have a bomb. Eyewitnesses dispute that.

But even is someone did say they had a bomb, should it automatically be assumed they do? We should not go shooting people unless they are credibly presenting a threat, and a bipolar man who has been through several layers of security screening who says something about a bomb is not making a credible threat.
.

First off, you have the luxury of knowing (perhaps) that he was bipolar. That information was not available to the officiers.

More importantly, in a few-second timeframe, what constitutes a credable threat?

 

[Upchurch]

You bet I'm taking it literally. Why shouldn't I? I am told to take the 2nd Amendment literally, so why not this? Just what parts should we take literally and which are up for whatever interpretation we like?

This is reminiscent of when we argue with Creationist Bible Literalists: Which parts do we take literally, and which parts do we interpret to our own understanding?

See the similarity? Eerie, isn't it?

Really? What about this?

Taketh not thy Creator's name in vain!

Shall I take this literally, too? Are you advocating religious reverence?

Claus, all of these documents are interpreted. We have an entire branch of government set up to interpret the constitution, i.e. the Supreme Court. When interpreting points of law and constitution, they often look at the context in which the particular document or law was framed.

We're not picking and choosing which parts we interpret, we interpret all of it.

 

[Ed]

Is there some point, Claus, to this particular derailment? Can you state it in a sentence or two?

 

[Upchurch]

Nevertheless, it was the starting point from which all subsequent documents were formed. I haven't seen any recantations of the DoI. Are they not called "The Charters of Freedom"?

Should we recant an entire document because of one rhetorical phrase? Do you understand what rhetoric is?

Do we dump the entire Constitution because they use the phrase "year of Our Lord" instead of "A.D."? They mean the exact same thing and it is not strictly religious or supernatural in nature. Namely, it refers to which calender we're referring to. Just because you maybe don't understand what is going on and think it is purely religious in nature, is that any reason to change the way we talk about calenders?

This is reminiscent of when we argue with Creationist Bible Literalists: Which parts do we take literally, and which parts do we interpret to our own understanding?

The difference, the critical difference, Claus, is that Biblical Literalists don't think they are interpreting anything. I, and I would say most Americans, know that we do.

When I was taught about the US Government in grade school, I learned about the three branches of government and their roles:

1. Legislative: makes the laws.
2. Executive: enforces the laws.
3. Judicial: interprets the laws.

You need to do a little more research. Whoever told you that we don't interpret the Constitution was not a very reliable source.

Out of curiosity, what is your source?

eta: This is the real philosophical foundation of the US.

 

[CFLarsen]

Really? What about this?

Shall I take this literally, too? Are you advocating religious reverence?

Thus, a joke was madeth.

Claus, all of these documents are interpreted. We have an entire branch of government set up to interpret the constitution, i.e. the Supreme Court. When interpreting points of law and constitution, they often look at the context in which the particular document or law was framed.

We're not picking and choosing which parts we interpret, we interpret all of it.

Do you? This, also?

All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

Not much room for interpretation, is there?

Or, how about this:

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Pretty clear, hm?

 

[CFLarsen]

Is there some point, Claus, to this particular derailment? Can you state it in a sentence or two?

Just commenting. Exercising my rights, I guess.

 

[CFLarsen]

Should we recant an entire document because of one rhetorical phrase? Do you understand what rhetoric is?

Do we dump the entire Constitution because they use the phrase "year of Our Lord" instead of "A.D."? They mean the exact same thing and it is not strictly religious or supernatural in nature. Namely, it refers to which calender we're referring to. Just because you maybe don't understand what is going on and think it is purely religious in nature, is that any reason to change the way we talk about calenders?

Who said anything about recanting? Who said anything about dumping the entire Constitution? I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a great deal of confusion on when and what can be interpreted.

Just accept that the US is founded on a religious context. What's so bad about it?

As for this idea I've heard here that the "Creator" can be a stick....that's as stupid as it gets.

The difference, the critical difference, Claus, is that Biblical Literalists don't think they are interpreting anything. I, and I would say most Americans, know that we do.

It doesn't matter what people think they are doing. What matters is what people actually do.

When I was taught about the US Government in grade school, I learned about the three branches of government and their roles:

1. Legislative: makes the laws.
2. Executive: enforces the laws.
3. Judicial: interprets the laws.

Same as in Denmark.

You need to do a little more research. Whoever told you that we don't interpret the Constitution was not a very reliable source.

Out of curiosity, what is your source?

Wait a second. That's exactly what I mean. What is a reliable source, then? Those who agrees with you?

It emphasizes the point I already made: You've had more than 200 years and you still haven't found out what your three major foundations mean.

eta: This is the real philosophical foundation of the US.

But is it an official US document?

 

[Ed]

Just commenting. Exercising my rights, I guess.

I haven't seen much in the way of comments, just insinuation.

Why not take a paragraph and comment?

 

[Ed]

Who said anything about recanting? Who said anything about dumping the entire Constitution? I'm merely pointing out that there seems to be a great deal of confusion on when and what can be interpreted.

Do you have any specific references concerning this confusion?

Just accept that the US is founded on a religious context. What's so
bad about it?

.

"Founded on a religious context". Reference? Not the DoI since there was no US then. Are you saying a line in the DoI which does not create the government and grants nothing is "it"? How silly, and you must provide references if that is your contention.

As for this idea I've heard here that the "Creator" can be a stick....that's as stupid as it gets.

Any reference to whom Jerrerson might have had in mind then? Abscent that, a stick does fine for me.

It doesn't matter what people think they are doing. What matters is what people actually do.



Same as in Denmark.

Except that you have a State Religion and a woman cannot be monarch. Aside from the lack of enlightenment over there, pretty much the same.

Wait a second. That's exactly what I mean. What is a reliable source, then? Those who agrees with you?

It emphasizes the point I already made: You've had more than 200 years and you still haven't found out what your three major foundations mean.

"Three"? "foundation" of what? The legal system? The government? There is just one. You seem to be misinformed.

 

[CFLarsen]

I haven't seen much in the way of comments, just insinuation.

I think I've been pretty clear.

Why not take a paragraph and comment?

What do you mean?

Do you have any specific references concerning this confusion?

"Founded on a religious context". Reference? Not the DoI since there was no US then. Are you saying a line in the DoI which does not create the government and grants nothing is "it"? How silly, and you must provide references if that is your contention.

No, it's not silly at all. The DoI is the foundation of the United States. Without it, no Constitution, no Bill of Rights.

Any reference to whom Jerrerson might have had in mind then?

Why do you think the "Creator" is with capital C?

Abscent that, a stick does fine for me.

Come on, you are not arguing that.

Except that you have a State Religion and a woman cannot be monarch. Aside from the lack of enlightenment over there, pretty much the same.

Wrong and wrong.

We have an Established Church (Evangelical Lutheran) and supported by the State. The Queen is the Monarch.

Read all about it...

"Three"? "foundation" of what? The legal system? The government? There is just one. You seem to be misinformed.

The three papers: The DoI, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights.

 

[Joe Random]

Thank you for volunteering that. I did not know how much or how little control someone who is bi-polar really has over themselves. Those people I have known who were bi-polar have all had out-of-control episodes at one time or another. Would you say the degree of your condition is typical?

I don’t think I’m qualified to judge how ‘typical’ my degree of severity is. I know there are people who are far worse off, and even more who are far less affected. Yes, I’ve had out of control moments, but I’ve been exceptionally lucky in that no one was hurt and only once was there damage to property (my own). I’d rather not get into more detail, but I think it would be safe to say that, while I’m not sure how ‘typical’ I am, I don’t think I’m unusual enough in any regard to be an interesting case study or anything.

Yes. I am often told that people with hammers tend to see all problems as nails.

I think you might misunderstand me. I’m not judging the actions of the marshals (mainly because I’ve yet to hear a definitive take on what actually happened). I’m just giving my opinion that Alpizar’s mental health wasn’t relevant in deciding how to deal with him at the time of the shooting in this particular case. Neither the marshals nor the airline staff apparently had any prior knowledge of his supposed condition. It wasn’t until the situation went critical that his wife started throwing out the ‘bi-polar’ bit of information, and at that point it was too late.

If the man had not been killed but rather taken into custody (which I’m not suggested should have been done, merely saying ‘if’) then of course his mental health should be a large factor in determining his punishment. Once the crisis is over and any potential threat neutralized it is appropriate (and actually /possible/) to take someone’s mental condition into account when determining how to deal with them.

I honestly don’t know if shooting was warranted, as I don’t know what was actually said and done by Alpizar which led to it. I try not to have opinions on things where I know there’s much I /don’t/ know, and reading the conflicting accounts it’s clear there is much I don’t know. My only point is that his mental heath should not be used in judging the marshals’ actions at the time of the incident.

If it would have been justified to shoot any other “sane” person who acted in a similar manner (whether or not they actually had a bomb), then it’s my opinion it was justified to shoot Alpizar.

 

[Ed]

The three papers: The DoI, The Constitution, The Bill of Rights.

One. The constitution. BoR is part of the constitution. DoI has no particular standing. Unless of course, you have a reference.

 

[CFLarsen]

One. The constitution. BoR is part of the constitution. DoI has no particular standing. Unless of course, you have a reference.

"Would you like to sit with me...for a cup of English tea..."

 

[Ed]

"Would you like to sit with me...for a cup of English tea..."

Excellent. Now read what they say. No standing, a cherished symbol.

Why do you care so much? And what is your point?

 

[CFLarsen]

Excellent. Now read what they say. No standing, a cherished symbol.

The political philosophy of the Declaration was not new; its ideals of individual liberty had already been expressed by John Locke and the Continental philosophers. What Jefferson did was to summarize this philosophy in "self-evident truths" and set forth a list of grievances against the King in order to justify before the world the breaking of ties between the colonies and the mother country.

There you go: Without the DoI, no US.

Why do you care so much? And what is your point?

Why? I just do. Isn't that enough reason?

 

[Ed]

There you go: Without the DoI, no US.



Why? I just do. Isn't that enough reason?

Pointless.

I'm gone.

 

[Freakshow]

Is there some point, Claus, to this particular derailment? Can you state it in a sentence or two?

1: Personal insecurity
2: Constant bashing of something big and strong and powerful, to make up for item #1.

 

[Mycroft]

As I said earlier, by any sane standards an airport is a very safe place because it has extraordinary security compared to other public places that would be equally effective terrorist targets....

And what we're discussing is a part of that security.

You missed the boat on a little thing we are working on called "civilisation". These days it's not acceptable to tout excluding the mentally disabled from society as a worthy goal in and of itself. That kind of bigotry belongs in the past.

There is a huge difference between excluding people because they are mentally disabled and excluding people who are mentally disabled because they are a danger to others.

 

[Perforatu]

There is a huge difference between excluding people because they are mentally disabled and excluding people who are mentally disabled because they are a danger to others.

Right, except in this case the guy that got shot wasn't a danger to others.

 

[Mycroft]

But even is someone did say they had a bomb, should it automatically be assumed they do?

Yes. Not only yes, but yes, duh!

We should not go shooting people unless they are credibly presenting a threat,

And a person who claims to have a bomb is a credible threat.

and a bipolar man who has been through several layers of security screening who says something about a bomb is not making a credible threat.

In just a few seconds, it's impossible to determine someone is bipolar, just as it's impossible to determine, with certainty, that he'd been through several layers of security and hadn't found a way to circumvent them.