Explosion at the Boston Marathon.

Belz... said:
I don't think those were meant as arguments.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I believe one of them was meant as clueless irony from someone who stops his ears with his fingers while extolling the virtues of "critical thinking" from a high horse.
 
There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the definition of the term "terrorism". Various legal systems and government agencies use different definitions of "terrorism". Moreover, the international community has been slow to formulate a universally agreed upon, legally binding definition of this crime. These difficulties arise from the fact that the term "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged.[3]
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_terrorism


Just like "Freedom fighter".
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
Yup. I'd have more respect for the Internet sleuths if they have some skin in the game... you know, like real cops.
Click to expand...


It's funny you should say that. I went looking for those egregious violations of privacy by the junior g-men Internet sleuths. But what I kept finding was actual cops making arrests based on nothing but suspiscion or hunches and main stream journalists tripping over each other to get the scoop.

Is what those junior g-men did as a whole really any worse than the "skeptics" here that condem them?
 
Vermonter said:
I'm sure this may have already been answered, but they can ask him the same questions once his Miranda rights have been read. If the suspect repeats the answer he gave, then the information can be used. Of course, the suspect may say something different, but as you mentioned, I doubt they'll need to get his statement to get a conviction.
Click to expand...

And in fact he has had his rights read to him when he had his hearing yesterday.
 
smartcooky said:
Yep, you're right. He's getting his gormless plonkers confused

It was Andy Griffiths, and his deputy Barney Fife (played by Don Knotts) who use to say "Hootie hoo"
Click to expand...
No, it was Gomer Pyle.

smartcooky said:
Gomer Pyle was a recurring character in the Andy Griffiths Show
Click to expand...
Yes.

Perhaps instead of his "hooty hoot" line (which I thought was in connection with a stake-out or a prisoner capture, but the memory is fuzzy), those who are so desperate to find a symbol to illustrate their contempt instead of presenting a case for why that contempt is warranted could use Gomer shouting "Citizen's arrest! Citizen's arrest!".
Or, with an extra dollop of wit, "Citizen's arrayust! Citizen's arrayust!"
 
Dan O. said:
It's funny you should say that. I went looking for those egregious violations of privacy by the junior g-men Internet sleuths. But what I kept finding was actual cops making arrests based on nothing but suspiscion or hunches and main stream journalists tripping over each other to get the scoop.

Is what those junior g-men did as a whole really any worse than the "skeptics" here that condem them?
Click to expand...
There does seem to be a bit of a double standard here.

If someone has his picture broadcast worldwide because of suspicions cast by internet picture posters or notorious newspapers, then it's somehow impossible that the damage
to his reputation can ever be repaired.

On the other hand, if someone has his picture broadcast worldwide as he's stripped naked and arrested for suspicion of terrorism by duly authorized law enforcement agents, then a simple apology suffices; no harm, no foul.

What a curious lack of consistency these critical thinkers display.
 
Shiner said:
The motivation behind the act is not a factor in the result. An act of terror.

Why does a terrorist need political motivation? There's religion for one....

If they did it because they were picked on at school, is a random public bombing suddenly not an act of terrorism?
Click to expand...
The Columbine massacre was never defined as terrorism. Neither are things like the Aurora or the Sandy Hook shootings.

Killing lots of people doesn't make someone a terrorist:
Title 22 of the U.S. Code, Section 2656f(d) defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.”

The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) defines terrorism as “the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.”

Both definitions of terrorism share a common theme: the use of force intended to influence or instigate a course of action that furthers a political or social goal. In most cases, NIJ researchers adopt the FBI definition, which stresses methods over motivations and is generally accepted by law enforcement communities.


http://www.nij.gov/topics/crime/terrorism/
Click to expand...
 
zeggman said:
There does seem to be a bit of a double standard here.

If someone has his picture broadcast worldwide because of suspicions cast by internet picture posters or notorious newspapers, then it's somehow impossible that the damage
to his reputation can ever be repaired.

On the other hand, if someone has his picture broadcast worldwide as he's stripped naked and arrested for suspicion of terrorism by duly authorized law enforcement agents, then a simple apology suffices; no harm, no foul.

What a curious lack of consistency these critical thinkers display.
Click to expand...

The "naked man" was never identified and his face was never shown.

Whereas the Internet sleuths explicitly named individuals and posted their portraits.
 
Checkmite said:
The "naked man" was never identified and his face was never shown.

Whereas the Internet sleuths explicitly named individuals and posted their portraits.
Click to expand...
The naked man's face is clearly visible as he's being marched to the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Neither the N.Y. Post nor the internet sleuths identified the "bag men" by name.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
The "naked man" was never identified and his face was never shown.

Whereas the Internet sleuths explicitly named individuals and posted their portraits.
Click to expand...

As well, the police never published any images of the naked man. There is a difference between police making an arrest which is filmed and broadcast by a third party, regardless of any desire of the police, and the armchair sleuths who make a conscious decision to publish their suspicions online with the luxury of time for reflection.

The police detained a person they believed was suspicious and possibly dangerous in the thick of the moment. There was media on hand (not by invitation, of course) who broadcast the event.

How is this at all similar to the recklessness of online sleuths publicly discussing their wild-assed suspicions on a widely read site based on nothing but scouring photos?
 
zeggman said:
If someone has his picture broadcast worldwide because of suspicions cast by internet picture posters or notorious newspapers, then it's somehow impossible that the damage to his reputation can ever be repaired.
Click to expand...

Hang on a sec, kiddo....

You're on record as saying that the kid was overreacting in the first place. That his reputation is only damaged because he's a paranoid "idiot". So why would it need to be "repaired"?

So how did it work when you were subjected to the same scenario? You never did say how you managed. Perhaps you can call him and talk to him, compare notes and such. I think your vast experience with worldwide infamy, albeit brief, could help.
 
zeggman said:
The naked man's face is clearly visible as he's being marched to the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Neither the N.Y. Post nor the internet sleuths identified the "bag men" by name.
Click to expand...

So you're only concerned with the well-being of a victim of mistaken identity if the person is naked?

Fetish?
 
zeggman said:
The naked man's face is clearly visible as he's being marched to the squad car with his hands cuffed behind his back.

Neither the N.Y. Post nor the internet sleuths identified the "bag men" by name.
Click to expand...

He has not been identified.

Unlike Sunil Tripathi.
 
NoahFence said:
Hang on a sec, kiddo....

You're on record as saying that the kid was overreacting in the first place. That his reputation is only damaged because he's a paranoid "idiot". So why would it need to be "repaired"?
Click to expand...
I'm attempting to state your position accurately. I don't think his reputation was damaged. I don't think the naked man's reputation was damaged.

If anyone's reputation was damaged as a result of these transient suspicions, it would have been the person who was actually stripped, handcuffed, and arrested by police, and not the one who was subjected to speculation by anonymous armchair comments.

If I'm misrepresenting your position, I apologize. You're welcome to clarify it.
 
Dan O. said:
Only the private face was blurred.
http://www.news.com.au/world-news/n...ostons-naked-man/story-fnh81jut-1226627017169

So you are factually incorrect on your first statement. Why should I trust the accuracy of your second?
Click to expand...

Are you honestly doubting that internet sleuths published names and faces?

Surely, no one can doubt that there were photos discussed online showing faces of individuals the online sleuths suspected.

Nor can anyone doubt that online sleuths openly discussed their suspicions of Tripathi, for instance.

Do you honestly ask for citations of both?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom