![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Paul Tomblin wrote:
In a previous article, "John T" said: "Paul Tomblin" wrote in message Funny, I thought this country had a constitution protecting your right to freedom of speech, and freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. I guess I was wrong. To whom was this directed? The police in the story or "the anonymous coward"? I wasn't denying the anonymous coward's right to call the site "the far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists". I was saying that even if the guy with the web site *was* on "the far left frindge(sic) of radical socialists" (and if you conclude that that from that particular blog, then so am I and most of my friends), that doesn't abrogate his right to take pictures of a tourist attraction without being threatened by 8 police, including three "federal agents from Homeland Security". Nowhere in the "nutball radical socialist's" article did he claim his freedom of speech was infringed. Neither, in fact, were his Fourth Amendment protections violated. Further. we only have his side of the story. Come back with the rest of the story and we'll see if we can find the real truth together. In the meantime, I submit that seeing a brown-skinned individual (perhaps Middle Eastern in appearance) taking photos of a prominent landmark while making notes is reasonably suspicious. If you'll recall, the reason the police first showed up to his house was in response to a citizen complaint and the police report revealed nothing wrong. Now, the second scenario where the eight officers surrounded him probably could have been avoided if he'd cooperated with the first guard with the dog. I wasn't there so I don't know what was the demeanor of either the officer(s) or the writer/photographer. Until then, and based solely on the way he wrote the story, I can easily imagine Spiers having a bit of a chip on his shoulder (that also being understandable even if unwise). I can just as easily see some of the officers having a bit of an attitude, so that brings me back to my real point: Bring me both sides of the story before you expect me to jump on any bandwagon. -- John T http://tknowlogy.com/TknoFlyer http://www.pocketgear.com/products_s...veloperid=4415 ____________________ |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Naval Aviation | 3 | April 6th 04 06:07 PM |
"Friendly fire" | Mike | Military Aviation | 0 | March 19th 04 02:36 PM |
B-52 crew blamed for friendly fire death | Paul Hirose | Military Aviation | 0 | March 16th 04 12:49 AM |
U.S. won't have to reveal other friendly fire events: Schmidt's lawyers hoped to use other incidents to help their case | Otis Willie | Military Aviation | 0 | December 18th 03 08:44 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |