Well........the weekly tabloids would be pretty lost without them. But that's about it.
Passenger killed by air marshall
- Thread starter Jas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- air marshal passenger
WildCat
NWO Master Conspirator
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2003
- Messages
- 59,856
Name one law that the Queen has refused to sign.
Do you understand that we don't teach people to become religious, but that we teach them about religion?
Do you understand that religions must be "approved" because otherwise, they won't enjoy tax breaks?
Do you understand that it is irrelevant what religion the Regent has to belong to?
Do you understand that we have religious freedom in Denmark?
Do you understand that I am not saying that the US is a theocracy?
Are you able to tell me just how far back in time we have to go?
Is the DoI not one of the founding documents?
You can take them one by one, if you like.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
The aspect of this event that was handled really well was media communication. The official 'neat' view with the guy on the plane waving a bomb and threatening to blow it up was quickly packaged and fed to the major news outlets. What bothers me is how happy we seem to be to have this done for us. Questioning the actions of law enforcement and with the White House assenting so soon after is sort of like heresy or being unpatriotic.
I will always say bulls**t to that. I am not the most perfect thinker around but something important to understanding is to be able to examine something from various perspectives, even ones you don't think you'll agree with or know are going to be wrong.
The use of armed 'air marshalls' was discussed quite a bit on these forums. There were one of many security solutions that were not chosen. One that was rejected as "unsafe" was to arm the pilots. I am actually fine with that option. If the pilot felt threatened and shot you it might still be a tragic mistake but a much less likely one.
Instead we have thousands of "air marshalls". Proper training has been an issue from the beginning. Did anyone question the particular training here? No, that would be like questioning the government... That's so unpatriotic.
My earlier point was that a lot of people are mentally ill, untreated, or unaware of the extent of their illness. These people would probably be much safer with an armed cockpit staff. This person could be any of us.
I value the opinions of the mentally ill people on the forum who believe in personal responsibility and the implications of that if they 'go off' their meds.
There are friends and family who care about you and worry about something like this happening almost every day. This is a great country, and one reason it is great is because we care about the lives and rights of the mentally ill as well as those who are not.
I cannot accept that something cannot be improved if the result of our policies result in innocent deaths.
Would we still be so calloused if someone we knew were shot because they went off their meds at the wrong place and time? There is a prejudice against the mentally ill, these forums are no different; air marshalls are no different either. It is not the only prejudice in the world, nor the last. I do not need evidence beyond just reading threads, it is enough.
So this was sad, but likely a result of probability and statistics more than anything else. I think that arming pilots was a better idea, but if only one innocent person is killed every few years or so it will not matter much. If the number of innocent dead become a meaningful statistic things might change more quickly.
I will always say bulls**t to that. I am not the most perfect thinker around but something important to understanding is to be able to examine something from various perspectives, even ones you don't think you'll agree with or know are going to be wrong.
The use of armed 'air marshalls' was discussed quite a bit on these forums. There were one of many security solutions that were not chosen. One that was rejected as "unsafe" was to arm the pilots. I am actually fine with that option. If the pilot felt threatened and shot you it might still be a tragic mistake but a much less likely one.
Instead we have thousands of "air marshalls". Proper training has been an issue from the beginning. Did anyone question the particular training here? No, that would be like questioning the government... That's so unpatriotic.
My earlier point was that a lot of people are mentally ill, untreated, or unaware of the extent of their illness. These people would probably be much safer with an armed cockpit staff. This person could be any of us.
I value the opinions of the mentally ill people on the forum who believe in personal responsibility and the implications of that if they 'go off' their meds.
There are friends and family who care about you and worry about something like this happening almost every day. This is a great country, and one reason it is great is because we care about the lives and rights of the mentally ill as well as those who are not.
I cannot accept that something cannot be improved if the result of our policies result in innocent deaths.
Would we still be so calloused if someone we knew were shot because they went off their meds at the wrong place and time? There is a prejudice against the mentally ill, these forums are no different; air marshalls are no different either. It is not the only prejudice in the world, nor the last. I do not need evidence beyond just reading threads, it is enough.
So this was sad, but likely a result of probability and statistics more than anything else. I think that arming pilots was a better idea, but if only one innocent person is killed every few years or so it will not matter much. If the number of innocent dead become a meaningful statistic things might change more quickly.
That would (mainly) be Constitutional provisions invalid through desuetude. I'm unfamiliar with the English term (common law perhaps?) but customs can and in some case do have legal weight, especially at the constitutinal level. The phenomenon is hardly unknown in the US either. One such custom is that the king (who's a queen) musth excercise his "powers" in accordance with the "advice" of the ministers. In other words when it says "king" it usually should be read PM, Governement or administration depending on the provision, though the part about the king being sacrosant still applies.
Last edited:
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
Kopji, I simply think that the air marshals are innocent until proven guilty and that the airline didn't have a big conspiracy to kill that guy.
Good Great Holy Gopher Guts!
I walk away for a week or so, and this is the muck you've made of this?
First of all, I agree to see what happens with the Air Marshalls. For now, I see nothing that they did that was completely out of line.
Others have said what I was going to say about the whole DOI stuff. The only thing I would interject was that our Founding Fathers were also DIRECTLY REJECTING the divine right to rule. They were basically telling old George to stuff it directly between his buttcheeks.
That was the purpose.
"Hey, George, go ◊◊◊◊ off and we ain't payin rent no more, either!"
At least CFL has agrred the US is not a theocracy. Thank all that's ho...erm.. Well, thank goodness, anyway.
I walk away for a week or so, and this is the muck you've made of this?
First of all, I agree to see what happens with the Air Marshalls. For now, I see nothing that they did that was completely out of line.
Others have said what I was going to say about the whole DOI stuff. The only thing I would interject was that our Founding Fathers were also DIRECTLY REJECTING the divine right to rule. They were basically telling old George to stuff it directly between his buttcheeks.
That was the purpose.
"Hey, George, go ◊◊◊◊ off and we ain't payin rent no more, either!"
At least CFL has agrred the US is not a theocracy. Thank all that's ho...erm.. Well, thank goodness, anyway.
Kopji
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 21, 2003
- Messages
- 8,004
That seems entirely reasonable... and I apologize for trying to stay on topic. It's good practice for me...
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
No, it's not, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you. The DoI merely chronicled the breaking of the Colonies from tyrannical British rule, and the reasons and philosophies for doing so. It did not create a nation. That did not happen until several years later.
The founding documents, that is the documents that form the structures and principles upon which the government and society of the USA is based are, first, the Articles of Confederation, which provided an interim government necessary for recognition as a sovereign state and to provide a forum to hash out the permanent structure of the new nation; and the United States Constitution, which enumerates all the powers of government, thus creating it's structure and limitations, as well as emunerating the basic rights held by the citizenry while providing a provision for the recognization, both implicit and explicit, of other individual and state rights.
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
Well, speaking as someone who is mentally ill, and who has had mentally ill family members; assuming that the actual event is substantially the same as the police report (which I currently have no reason not to, since no credible witnesses have contradicted it), I have no problem with the way that the police acted. He was presenting a clear and present threat.
If my mental illness was severe enough that going off my medication resulted in something that severe, then I'd expect to be treated in the same way (fortunately, mine would merely result in spending all my time hiding in my apartment unable to set foot out the door).
Just as an illustration, something very similar happened to one of my uncles. He was a diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic. He lived on his own, and was generally able to manage fairly well when he was on his meds. However, he didn't always take his meds. Once, when off his meds, he had a run-in with a local police officer. The officer was hassling him unnecessarily (he was rather scruffy-looking and in a nicer part of town), but nothing that should have been a problem, had my uncle been taking his medication like he was supposed to. But, since he wasn't, he reacted badly and pulled a knife on the officer; who, naturally, pulled his sidearm. My uncle, being delusionary, didn't cooperate with the officer, and was shot. He survived, but was paralyzed. Had he been taking his medication, he'd have gotten off with little more than bit of annoyance from the officer.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
For some reason, I think mentally ill people can be every bit as dangerous to people as people of sound mind.
Jefferson's own account.
You know, I think I'll trust those sources more than I'll trust you. I hope you can understand that.
Though I have to say, I'm a bit surprised to see the DoI being relegated to such insignificance. By Americans, no less.
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
It has significance in history, but not in our government.
What is your intention with this statement?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
To state a fact.
Does anyone dispute it?
thaiboxerken
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2001
- Messages
- 34,597
What do you mean by dispute?
(shrug)
Oh for everlovin...
LARSEN:
*sigh*
Ok, so far you've agreed that the US is NOT a theocracy, yes?
Right. So.
The DOI was an important document in US history..in western history, as a matter of fact. It was the first time that a large group of people had challenged the Divine Right to Rule established by the Catholic Church during the Dark/Middle ages. The wording is specifically to challenge the idea that George had any right to rule anyone. They specifically tried to NOT mention George's god in the wording, but had a nod to a Creator because...get this...THAT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVED AT THE TIME!!! It's a fact. The Danes believed it, at that time, just as much as the Colonists and the British, et cetera, ad nauseum. "We find it self evident" Yes! They found it evident WITHOUT THE NEED TO ASCRIBE TO A HIGER POWER, that all Men were created equal. In other words, George was ruling and taxing them on a basis that had no moral or ethical stance.
It was what it was, and is today: A Declaration of intent. That is all. A simple note to George and the rest of Europe to keep their Kings and Queens on their own side of the damned pond. Monroe underlined this a bit later, but the DOI was the first document to say "Back off!"
All that said, it has NO legal standing. It was not given as precident to abolish slavery. Had it been a legal document, it could have been so.
Nobody's doubting that it shaped world events. It did. But it is NOT a legal document of the US. It was NOT refered to to make the Constitution.
Any of this in doubt for you? Like I said before, it was a notice to George to go ◊◊◊◊ off and that we weren't paying taxes anymore. I realize this is a bit more vulgar than you are used to, but it is the gist of the document, put into modern terms.
LARSEN:
*sigh*
Ok, so far you've agreed that the US is NOT a theocracy, yes?
Right. So.
The DOI was an important document in US history..in western history, as a matter of fact. It was the first time that a large group of people had challenged the Divine Right to Rule established by the Catholic Church during the Dark/Middle ages. The wording is specifically to challenge the idea that George had any right to rule anyone. They specifically tried to NOT mention George's god in the wording, but had a nod to a Creator because...get this...THAT IS WHAT MOST PEOPLE BELIEVED AT THE TIME!!! It's a fact. The Danes believed it, at that time, just as much as the Colonists and the British, et cetera, ad nauseum. "We find it self evident" Yes! They found it evident WITHOUT THE NEED TO ASCRIBE TO A HIGER POWER, that all Men were created equal. In other words, George was ruling and taxing them on a basis that had no moral or ethical stance.
It was what it was, and is today: A Declaration of intent. That is all. A simple note to George and the rest of Europe to keep their Kings and Queens on their own side of the damned pond. Monroe underlined this a bit later, but the DOI was the first document to say "Back off!"
All that said, it has NO legal standing. It was not given as precident to abolish slavery. Had it been a legal document, it could have been so.
Nobody's doubting that it shaped world events. It did. But it is NOT a legal document of the US. It was NOT refered to to make the Constitution.
Any of this in doubt for you? Like I said before, it was a notice to George to go ◊◊◊◊ off and that we weren't paying taxes anymore. I realize this is a bit more vulgar than you are used to, but it is the gist of the document, put into modern terms.
I thought that you said it wasn't Jefferson's work exclusively?