That first story really throws me -- that there were police with guns keeping people from walking out of the city? How is that possible, and if it happened who gave the orders, and can we have them locked in a cage with no plumbing or water for a week or two?
They were keeping people from walking out of the city because they'd have walked into the white neighborhoods.
How is that possible
Not from the Deep South, are you?
So I guess this is a case of racial profiling, eh? WWB?
Erm, ogged? With respect to the update? What level of unruliness from a crowd of people trying to get out of a destroyed city justifies firing warning shots to threaten them into submission? I realize that you didn't actually say that the shots were justified, but posting the update implies that you think that the unruliness of the crowd makes a solitary scrap of a vestige of a difference to the ghastliness of what the police were doing. You really don't think that, do you?
Well the police had a right to prevent suspected looters from entering *other* towns and disturbing the peace there, right? I don't think this is at all outrageous. That's what the police do - they prevent breaches of the peace.
The need to fire warning shots implies that if the people hadn't stopped, they would have been shot. So in either case, it's a ridiculous argument. I understand the need for crowd control, but aren't the police there to serve and protect? As people often say, property can be rebuilt, rebought, etc. but lives cannot.
JT... Suspected looters? Why? Because they were black? Because they were from NO?
The first and foremost responsibility of any public servant is the protection of human life. Property comes second. Distantly.
you think that the unruliness of the crowd makes a solitary scrap of a vestige of a difference
Yes, about that much. Not nearly enough to make it not evil, or significantly less evil. Just noting for the sake of accuracy.
suspected looters
Um, JT, and I ask this in all seriousness: what can you possibly be thinking? What on earth makes you consider American citizens trying to rescue themselves from a life-threatening disaster area to be "suspected looters" who the police are entitled to shoot in order to keep them from escaping?
about that much
Well, okay then.
Tweedledopey: but they were from different cities, right? Unless I missed something these weren't NO officers. So they were protecting their own towns.
Do we have an obligation to throw open the Mexican border anytime there is a crisis to the south? Or can we still enforce our border laws?
Point being, it wasn't these officers' problem, it was NO's problem. And all they were trying to do is ensure that it didn't *become* their problem (which would happen if a bunch of destitute people came into their town and began looting, etc., which is exactly what would inevitably happen if these people came with nothing on which to sustain themselves).
I think you just crossed over into trolling.
Okay, JT? We don't have defended borders inside this country. As a citizen of New York, I am perfectly entitled to enter New Jersey, let alone leave NYC for Westchester county, at my whim. It's one of the best established constitutional rights out there.
You can't possibly believe that town police would be allowed to keep outsiders out by threat of force under normal conditions -- what is it about the fact that these people were in danger of their lives changes that?
From the article: "They responded that the West Bank was not going to become New Orleans and there would be no Superdomes in their City."
All I'm saying is that this is not prima facia an outrageous argument, in my opinion. I realize the author of the article thought this was racially motivated, which would indeed be despicable, but I don't know that there was any evidence for this.
If I was trying to leave a devastated city (particularly one denied red cross aid) by the only route available and police tried to stop me, I'd get freakin' unruly. What were they supposed to do? Go home? What home?
re: 12.
Not trying to troll. I'll shut up.
So, by JT's thinking, NYer's crossing the bridges to Brooklyn, NY, etc. by foot on 9/11 should have been stopped because they were from a different state or county? Stop me when this gets ridiculous.
The South is absurd.
It's not totally unreasonable for the average schmoe in Gretna to be nervous about a flood of refugees, given all the poorpeoplegonewildstories coming out of there.
But good lord. Nervousness isn't an excuse for walling people in a flooded city (and then bitching that they didn't leave), and it's certainly no excuse for the police. That's what gets me. It's not a couple uninformed people worried about refugees, but the police?
Good lord. This is too much to fathom. My town's flooding, can I cross the bridge? What, I need a damned passport to go to another town now?
Erm. Why are the comments justified instead of ragged right?
Ok JT, I'll assume you're arguing in good faith, then. First, there's the fact that, as LB says, folks have the right to go where they please in America and also the fact that we don't yet have a Department of Pre-crime: you can't keep someone out of your town (or fire warning shots at him!) because you think he might commit a crime.
But what's most strange about your response is how callous it is. New Orleans was a wasteland, with no food or water left for the people in it. I hear you saying that posting armed sentries at escape routes in order to keep "New Orleans's problem" in New Orleans is reasonable. Even if we grant that there was a chance that Gretna would have suffered disruption from allowing the refugees in, a decent response is that that's just the cost of compassion.
To take the specific statement--that "there would be no Superdomes in their city"--the obvious and massive problem with that statement is that the Superdome was a mess because there was no planning and no supplies, not that citizens of New Orleans were, ipso facto, lawless savages.
Why are the comments justified instead of ragged right?
Because I like justified text.
I don't think what the police did here was *right*, or moral or ethical or just. I *do* think it was reasonable, given the exigent circumstances.
In other words I think it was a government failure, but it is just one of the many governmental failures about which I have read over the past week, and by no means the most offensive. In fact it is (to me) one of the most understandable. I don't think it was malicious, and doubt that it was racially motivated (at least that is my hope). That is all I was saying.
Threatening people with gunfire to keep them from escaping from a disaster area is reasonable!??!? Whether or not it was racially motivated, it was not reasonable, it was not moral, it was not legal (that is, it was at the minimum a civil rights violation) and it is not acceptable.
JT, if all you're saying is that letting destitute refugees into your town might cause disruptions, yeah, we'll all grant that, I think (although the fear of disruption is exaggerated, as the rest of the story makes clear, I think). But you seem to be saying that that's sufficient reason to keep them out, when they don't have other good options, and when their situation is dire. That's what we're all disagreeing with.
Nah, not reasonable, sorry. When people are fleeing a disaster, the reasonable thing to do is help them out, not sniff 'Not in my backyard'.
I don't know whether it was racially motivated or not, not knowing the makeup of Gretna. But good lord. Denying someone refuge from a disease-ridden, festering flood because you think they 'might' be looters is really fucking callous.
I mean, you want to keep order? Organizing an aid station. Having visible patrols... Offering people information on how to get help. Firing warning shots for crossing a bridge? That ain't it.
Read 23 again. I'm not! not! not! saying this was a "sufficient reason to keep them out," only that it was a completely understandable response to the situation that therefore doesn't really offend or enrage or otherwise upset me.
Maybe I should be more outraged; I'm clearly in the minority on this. I'll try to work up some fury.
In that case, JT, it sounds to me like you're using "completely understandable" in a very strange way.
And in 27 I meant "understandable" as in "predictable result of human nature," not as in "morally correct" or otherwise "okay."
JT,
How you can find it understandable is beyond me. I can understand why they did it, understand that in the same situation I might do the same, but that does not mean that I have to accept that it's an understandable response.
I don't quite remember where I read this (it might have been here) that one of the biggest mistakes that the law enforcement has made in NO is that they have automatically assumed that any crowd of people is going to be dangerous and unruly, without considering any mitigating factors (perhaps partly because of the racial makeup of the crowds). This probably explains the behavior of the in the story.
Ogged -- 28 and 29 crossed paths in cyberspace; hopefully that explains things? Although I don't think this use of "understandable" is very strange.
Are we using different definitions of "reasonable"? If you're saying "I can understand why they did it," I can sort of see that, but that doesn't make it what I'd call reasonable--there weren't any good reasons for it.
The fact remains that it was completely illegal--you can't bar someone from coming into your city--and, as has been pointed out, utterly callous. Not letting these folks across the bridge meant sending them back into a wasteland without food or water. And saying, "We don't want disruption in our town, so you will have to die" is utterly callous. I guess when I say I understand why they did it, that understanding includes understanding that they are cold-blooded assholes.
So what Cala said, basically.
tweedledopey - your use of "understandable" in 30 baffles me. Seriously, I don't know what that word means to you.
33 after 27--I guess we've established we're using the words differently. But I think, even if we understand what's going on here, we should still be outraged about it. Where it falls on the scale of things to be outraged about, I don't know.
Re: 30. This goes back to that whole explanation vs. justification thing. JT said "I *do* think it was reasonable, given the exigent circumstances." "Reasonable" in this context strongly suggests justification, if not endorsement, as would "understandable". If one doesn't want to appear to be justifying it, one must be more careful using such ambiguous terminology.
OK, in ethics we often talk about two senses of 'reason for an action' (right, Labs?). In one sense, the reason for an action is roughly, what explains the person's doing it--in another sense, a reason for an action actually has to provide a good reason for doing it. So you can say, "I understand his reason for jumping out the window--he has a pathological fear of spiders--but still, he had no real reason to jump out the window." The first sense is more descriptive, the second more normative.
I think JT is using 'understandable' and 'reasonable' in something like the first sense, and everyone else is using it in something like the second sense.
No, it is very strange. "Understandable", in the colloquial english I speak, means that it's not something you can really blame someone for.
"Understandable" would be the cops thinking to themselves that they wished refugees weren't coming through their town, and directing them to places they could get help someplace else so they didn't stay too long. Trapping them with threats of violence in a destroyed city is not "understandable".
What I meant by understandable was that I could understand being incredibly frightened in this situation. An angry mob descending on me and two of my sherriff buddies. I fire my gun in the air. I wish there were some other way to have crowd control, but I could understand being completely overwhelmed here.
What I can't understand is not allowing these people to cross the bridge. That completely negates having to fire a gun. I think the gun firing is completely secondary here. If they had just turned the people around, it would have been just as bad. Their treatment of the people was horrendous. I'd be interested to see who made the decision not to let them cross. That would help explain things better.
pdf23ds - I must have an odd moral philosophy. I'm willing to let people do quite a bit that I don't agree with, or that I don't think is right, before I'm willing to step in and say that what they are doing is *wrong.*
I don't think what they did here was wrong. It wasn't right either. It was in the big giant grey area in between the two, that area in which actions are neither to be condemned nor praised. It's not how I hope that I would act in the same situation, but "how I hope I would act" is quite honestly a pretty high standard in most situations.
I think you people are failing to accentuate the positive: at a minimum, JT's position allows us to kick Southern Reds the fuck out of our Blue States when they come in. So it's not all bad.
I don't think what they did here was wrong. It wasn't right either. It was in the big giant grey area in between the two, that area in which actions are neither to be condemned nor praised.
This is horrifying. What's wrong with you?
What I meant by understandable is that I could trace a thought through my head where the situation would end up where it did. I was in no way condoning what happened there. And my understanding is predicated on them being ordered not to allow the people across the bridge, and being rather young and inexperienced. Barring my assumptions, I can't understand it.
to 41:
JT, maybe you should rethink that moral philosophy. Because if you can reason out how you ought to act in a situation, than it's helpful to condemn other actions. It creates the normative environment that influences other in their reasoning and behavior, both by creating the well of arguments to draw on when figuring out the right course of action, and instilling a healthy sense of shame about doing the wrong thing. The existence of a safe community in which wrongdoing is not judged encourages wrongdoing.
Tia-
That's a much more measured and reasonable version of what I meant by 43. (And I really like the 'rescued by a man on a white horse' story on your blog.)
I can relate to the last part of 41: In situation X, I hope I do Y, but given situation X actually happening, I lose my cool and do Z instead. This doesn't excuse my doing Z, but I think it's pretty human.
Okay, it's "pretty human" to hit someone over the head with a rock and take their stuff away if you really want it. Saying that something is "pretty human" is a far, far cry from saying that it is not to be condemned.
there is a big difference between hitting someone with a rock to take their stuff (which is clearly wrong) and refusing to let people enter your town because you are afraid they are going to loot and destroy it (which is more understandable, and although not a compassionate or noble response, is not something I would outright condemn).
Two points.
1. To Matt: (a) Hi, miss ya; (b) your second species of 'reason' is not right: if we're talking about explanatory vs justifying reasons here, the latter should be understood as justifying reasons from the agent's point of view. So we needn't regard them as good reasons, as long as we can make it intelligible that the agent regarded them as as good. Presumably JT is claiming that the cited reasons are justifying in this sense.
2. If I had time I'd try to argue that the cops' behavior is evil precisely because it literally cannot be understood. There's an APA talk on my website about this, if anyone's interested. (Since the paper was written years ago, it obviously isn't about this case. But I suspect that the prejudices in play here make it sufficiently similar to the cases I discuss.)
P.S. Ogged, It would be nice if comment numbers appeared in preview mode. (I'm replying to Matt's third comment.)
It would be nice if comment numbers appeared in preview mode
Yes it would, but isn't possible, far as I've been able to determine.
"If I had time I'd try to argue that the cops' behavior is evil precisely because it literally cannot be understood. "
I wish you had time, because that would be interesting. Because it seems like a pretty far-fetched claim.
refusing to let people enter your town because you are afraid they are going to loot and destroy it (which is more understandable, and although not a compassionate or noble response, is not something I would outright condemn).
You can't condemn a clear violation of law by the police, which placed innocent people in danger of their lives? Allowing people to walk along a public road to flee a dangerous situation isn't compassionate, it is required by the barest minimum of decent behavior. Preventing them from doing so isn't understandable, it is brutally reprehensible.
I reiterate my question from 41: what is wrong with you?
Okay, it's "pretty human" to hit someone over the head with a rock and take their stuff away if you really want it.
Remind me not to move wherever the humans you know are, LB. That's pretty extreme, and not what I was talking about.
I was thinking more along the lines of the whole:
When they came for the gypsys, I was silent.
When they came for the homosexuals, I was silent.
When they came for the communists, I was silent.
When they came for the Jews, I was silent.
When they came for me, who will stand up for me?
Again, I've said I don't condone it. I understand under a couple of extreme conditions that I stipulated in 44. But to deny the failings of human beings, LB? Can you not understand that some people may wholly intend to do good things, and then just completely lose it? That doesn't make it right, and I never said it did.
Justifying reasons from the agent's point of view? Really? Well, we need another kind of reason here, the kind that means good reasons. (Miss you guys too.)
Because, JT, if you're talking about refusing to let people enter your town--and possibly sending them to their deaths--because you're afraid they'll loot and destroy it, YOU NEED SOME VERY GOOD REASONS TO THINK THEY MIGHT LOOT AND DESTROY IT. Like, they'd better be convicted criminals. As it is, these fuckers turned away a group of law-abiding citizens who had EVERY LEGAL RIGHT to enter their city because, well, I don't know--the law enforcement authorities weren't wearing their diapers? Or maybe they were racist?
You know the story about the ship in the 30s, carrying Jewish refugees from Nazi Germany, that the U.S. refused to let land? Probably the people in charge were afraid that the Jews would loot and destroy their cities. Are you going to refuse to condemn that? Admittedly the Jews were in much less immediate danger.
JT,
So if white Southerners in the 50's and 60's had an "understandable" fear that integration might bring unrest to their children's schools, or cause their children to have to share classes with poorer children who were further behind, you would not condemn them for standing accross the doorways with guns in defiance of a federal order? If you would condemn them, where, exactly, is the disanalogy?
tweedle-
I'm not disagreeing with you all that hard. This:
them being ordered not to allow the people across the bridge, and being rather young and inexperienced.
makes some sense to me, in that it would shift some of the responsibility to the people who gave the criminal orders. I just wanted to make the point that there's no relationship at all between behavior being "human" and its being not being worthy of condemnation. Humans do some pretty awful stuff.
There is very little I would actually condemn. Physical harm to another, or intentional property damage, etc. But that's about it.
If these police had actually shot any of the citizens, *that* would be despicable. (And just because they fired a warning shot doesn't mean they would have -- there's a very big difference between firing a gun in the air to scare someone and pointing it at them to shoot them).
JT, I'm sorry, but it just seems like you're not thinking this through, or being sloppy in your language. Your 58 makes it sound like you'd condemn vandalism, but wouldn't condemn keeping people in a situation in which their lives are in danger.
JT,
Fer cryin' out loud. The police did physical harm to them by forcing them to stay in the city and keeping them away from food, water, and medicine. We don't know; they may have even caused some of their deaths through their actions.
"refusing to let people enter your town"
Not simply "people" in this case, though. Refusing to let refugees into your town/city/country tends to be roundly codemned throughout history, with good reason.
The only thing that I can imagine to defend JT is that the cops didn't know that water, food, and medicine were not being delivered to the people. But given the mention of the Superdome, this seems implausible.
tweedledopey, I don't think you have to even grant that much. I mean, if the cops had said, "Sorry, we can't let you into our town, but here is food, water, and shelter" that would have been less despicable.
But I don't see how aggressively turning a crowd away can be interpreted as meaning "Sorry, neighbors, not in our town, but we hope you get what you're looking for elsewhere!"
At this point, JT has to be trolling, in the limited sense of posting outrageous crap to get attention. (obviously s/he may be a perfectly decent, reasonable person in other contexts -- I am not attempting to discourage anyone else from continuing the discussion.)
I'm out.
Ogged -- the moral distinction is not between vandalism or keeping someone in a dangerous situation. The moral distinction is in the reason for the action. Either could be wrong if done willfully and without good cause. If there is understandable provocation, however, I would be hesitant to condemn either.
I was sloppy in saying not adding "...without cause" to 58. Sorry for the confusion.
LB,
What I was saying with my argument was that it's pretty human for people to lose there cool in a moment of panic and do something that, at any other time, they would have done otherwise. I was acknowledging this as a human failing, and one that is most often done at a meaningless level, but only ever really reported on a heinous one.
I was unaware that there was a more expansive definition of "trolling." I thought posting intentionally provocative b.s. was the heart and soul of trolling.
OT:
via: Freedom To Tinker dashlog.
sorry - 67 referenced 64, if that was confusing.
People use "X is a troll" to mean that "I have formed the opinion, based on experience, that nothing X says under any circumstances is worthy of engagement". I haven't seen you often enough (that is, not ever before to my knowledge) to make that sort of global judgment.
I am convinced that you are, now and in this thread, posting outrageous crap to get attention. I hope that that is the case. If I'm wrong, and you are taking the positions you've espoused here seriously, you disgust me.
The first part of 55 may have seemed like I was angry at Ted H. Just want to make it clear that I'm not--kinda embarrassed that I wasn't getting it right. (Does that answer this question?) But then that wasn't the distinction I was looking for.
JT, that's the traditional definition of troll, but it's currently being expanded in usage to include anyone who repeatedly posts really controversial stuff that doesn't have a thorough rational basis, and who doesn't fully engage other posters in what they consider to be quality debate. This sense may already be more common than the original sense already, and I think it's more useful than the original sense, as speculating about a given poster's true motivations becomes less practical as the number of commenters grows, outside of the relatively small and tightly-knit Usenet community where the term originated. Back then, people were familiar with most all of the regular posters in their groups, and had long-term exposure to them, and thus might be able to form opinions about intetions.
A more vague sense of "troll" that I've seen used includes anyone who posts really controversial stuff, without reference to intent. It tends to be tossed around at everyone who disagrees by overly defensive people, and thus is used more often than it deserves. When it gets this broad, it becomes a pretty much generic insult. I hope usage sticks with the middle meaning.
I'm pretty sure LizardBreath is using it in the middle sense, and not lightly.
LB--Sorry you left the thread, because I wanted to ask you how one could go after the police in court?
Bostoniangirl -- the most obvious would be 42 U.S.C. 1983. Actually this would probably work well.
No worries, Matt. You didn't seem angry to me. Besides, I've never been all that fluent in metaethicese myself. My idiolect reflects what I need the terminology to do for my projects.
Moreover, calling an act 'reasonable' does implicate not merely that the agents had a (justifying) reason for it but that the reason, or at least some available reason, is a good one. (I think LB more or less noted this above.)
I find the question of 'trolling' interesting. Is it trolling to be either too confused or too inarticulate to make a useful contribution? I do have a vague sense of a point that JT might have been trying to make, but s/he seems to be badly misformulating it.
It may be that the cops were (a) ignorant of the true nature of their act or (b) self-deceived about what they knew about its nature. If even (b), then they were not evil -- as long as the self-deception was not motivated by a 'rationalization' that prevented them from being receptive to moral criticism. (Sorry, I really can't take the time to explain that further. All I can do is point to the talk on my website that I mentioned in the previous comment.)
But in either case, what they were doing is wrong and deserves condemnation.
JT--It wasn't clear to me that they were all black. I was also interested in learning more about the evidentiary issues.
Is the horse dead yet? ['readying the whip']
To read JT charitably and not as a troll, he is saying, "Hey, it's possible the cops panicked and with all the rumors going around, when they were confronted by an angry mob, they fired into the air because that was the only way they could get everyone's attention."
And that is a charitable interpretation of the situation. Unfortunately, I think it's also an incredulous interpretation. We don't have a lot of details, of course, but this doesn't sound like some 18-year old sheriff who got scared and fired into the air. Which would be bad, of course, but forgivable.
This sounds like Gretna decided that they "didn't want the Superdome" in their city and somehow made the brilliantly illogical leap that the problems with the Superdome were caused not by lack of food, water, and basic amenities, but by the people... and then decided that people weren't allowed into their town and sent out the cops to keep out the scarypoorblackpeople. The logic is absurd. It's like saying people in Manhattan should be stopped from crossing into Brooklyn because Manhattan has terrorism and the refugees will bring the falling towers with them.
This is America. You can't stop people from coming into your town because you're afraid of something they might do. That goes *double* if you're the law enforcement. I can go from my relatively crappy town into the lovely suburbian arcadia around it. I don't need a passport. That's just how this works.
The fact that NO is a deathtrap only compounds the error.
"Is it trolling to be either too confused or too inarticulate to make a useful contribution?"
In the usage I described, yes, but only if one doesn't realize the futility of continuing to post in the forum and thus raises the noise level by not dropping the subject when no one is making any progress on it anyway. I don't think this is really to impugn the character of the troll too terribly, though. The Usenet sense is more of a moral judgement on the person's character, but the new sense, as I've seen it used, is just a particular kind of misbehavior, that can even be committed in good faith sometimes, (though not by skilled/respected participants,) so being called a troll simply for posting without really contributing isn't *that* harsh of a judgement.
So a troll may be capable of having a more productive discussion on the same issue in a more sympathetic forum, if there's at least one commenter that's willing to give the benefit of the doubt *and* is able to somehow coax a reasonable formulation of a position out of the troll. Depending on the good faith and language skill of the troll, and the clarity of their ideas, this is not always possible.
This usage may not be completely fair, but it's how I see the word being used.
About reasonableness. I think, Ted, that it does involve an implication that the reason is a good one, unless the person A saying that person X was reasonable also says that X had mistaken information with which to work, in which case X's action wouldn't be reasonable with more knowledge, but was reasonable under the circumstances. I think JT was trying to make that case, but that no one could imagine how any reasonably-held beliefs could justify treating the crowds as intrinsicly dangerous, and thus disagreed with him. (I think he also said some other things, but that's another story.)
Here's my take on explaining the police's actions. The traditional methods used for crowd and mob control could have skewed law enforcement's perceptions of the nature of crowds and groups of people. In New Orleans, the crowds were composed of mostly very normal, though often poor, people, whereas other crowds in peace protests and such have more homogeneous domographics and thus different emergent properties. Since law enforcement has more experience with these homogeneous, usually more violent crowds, they are unprepared to handle the characteristic differences in the crowds of Katrina victims, and treat them as roving gangs instead of roving groups of real human people.
I don't think that their actions were reasonable, though. While they might not have had the right kind of crowd control experience, that's largely a matter of common sense and decency and not special knowledge. And the explanation doesn't rule out other factors like racism and classism either. In fact, my explanation is probably necessary to some extent along with racist and classist prejudice in order to fully explain all of their actions.
I can go from my relatively crappy town into the lovely suburbian arcadia around it. I don't need a passport.
Yeah, this is really reminding me of "don't let the sun go down on you...."
(But: People are incredulous--interpretations are incredible, or unbelievable. First strike, sorry.)
JT, you're really saying you aren't confident enough in your moral knowledge to be able to say that, other things being equal, threatening violent force to prevent someone from travelling away from a situation where they are likely to be unable to get food or water isn't wrong? Do you have really limited idea of the scope of causality? Do you just not think right and wrong are meaningfully applicable concepts?
Maybe I am guilty of misformulation and inarticulation, but I honestly don't think so. I'm going to give this one more try and then retire. Not that anyone still cares at this point, but just for my own sanity.
There are very good acts that deserve commendation. There are very bad acts that deserve condemnation. And there are a whole lot of very human acts in between. Basically acts are not all either right or wrong; they are all actually either right, wrong, or neutral. "Neutral" may not be the best word here because all I really mean is an act that is neither praiseworthy nor blameworthy. This could be something legitimately neutral like buying a box of cereal at the store, or it could be something that is not how one would ideally act but is very understandable nonetheless. Passing a homeless person on the street without offering them some money would fit into this category, I think. Certainly, ideally, I would give money away to all those who needed it more than I did, which would entail giving away a great deal more money than I do currently (85%? 90% of my income?). I should also probably be offering shelter in my house to every homeless person I see on the street, especially in the winter. After all, they might die from the cold. If I did this it would be a praiseworthy thing to do. I don't think, however, that it is right to condemn anyone (myself included) for failing to do this, even though I acknowledge that this is the right and just and moral thing to do. I can think of many many other examples of this same sort of thing.
I think that's exactly what went on here. I would have liked to have seen these officers allow the citizens into their town; it would have been nice if they had even taken care to find them some food and shelter, etc. The fact that they didn't do this is sad, since we want our government to uphold the highest standards of civility with regard to its own citizens.
However, not wanting to allow a potentially dangerous mob into the city that they were sworn to protect is a very reasonable, understandable response to these very stressful, exigent, and confusing circumstances, and I'm not willing to condemn these officers (or their superiors) for taking it. Again, if they had actually shot anyone that would have been crossing a line, but merely trying to divert the problem elsewhere instead of having it on their hands to deal with does not seem to me outrageous.
I'm sorry Lizardbreath if this disgusts you.
Re: 77
Bostoniangirl -- what does race have to do with it? 1983 applies to any deprivation of civil rights -- it doesn't mention anything about race. This would be the deprivation of the right to travel freely. (At the very least, possibly quite a few more).
Weiner, the love I bear for thee can afford no term than this: thou art a little bitch.
But totally correct. I switched back and forth between 'incredible' and 'incredulous' before realizing that it was a comment on the Internet and I didn't care.
JT--I'm not at all familiar with §1983 civil rights legislation.
But anyway, do we know what officers did this and what jx they worked for? Because I think somebody should fund a law suit.
JT: you could draw a distinction between moral brownie-points, like offering the homeless man a night in your house and just plain old moral requirements, like not lying (ceteris handwavynis).
I can agree with the basic distinction. You're not required to give all your goods to charity to be doing the right thing. But no one here's arguing that. We're just making the basic point that common sense says that you don't refuse someone entrance to American streets when a) it's against the law to refuse some entrance b) it is a life or death situation and c) when it's your job to uphold the law.
So yeah, while I accept that a moral brownie-point view is natural, I deny that refusing entry into a city is a moral brownie-point situation. Refusing to open your home to strangers, morally acceptable. Refusing safe passage? Not so much.
bostoniangirl- you can google "42 usc 1983" and become familiar with it in about 5 minutes; it's basically one paragraph. (not that you would want to waste even 5 minutes of your life on such a task). It more or less says 'any public officials who within their official capacity deprive anyone else of any of their civil rights shall be liable.' That's obviously a paraphrase, but captures the gist.
And I have no doubt that once things settle down a bit some trial lawyer will be all over this. Assuming of course that it doesn't turn out to be total rumor, etc.
Actually JT, it can be hard to get people to take civil rights cases. Although there's a provision for lawyer's fees in the law (this much I know), any award is fully taxable--unlike a tort award. So you have a situation where after litigation costs and taxes, there might not be money left for the victim or the lawyer. Would punitive damages be allowed, because I don't know what the actual damages would be etc. So, it's not clear that the entrepreneurial sort of contingency lawyer I assume you're referring to when you say "trial lawyer" would be interested in taking the case.
Haven't read any of the comments, just the original post, so I am inclined to hum:
My country 'tis of thee,
Sweet land of liberty,
I'm so fucking glad I don't live there now.
If w-lfs-n were around, he might hep me with the meter, but I think I'm fucked on the rhyme.
Just to restate what Cala said in 86 while using jargon that I like better, everyone commenting here presumably agrees that under any system of ethics, all acts are either obligatory, permissible, or forbidden. Furthermore, some subset of the permissible acts are superogatory.
For instance, jumping in front of a bullet (where the bullet being in motion isn't because of some forbidden act which you did) to save a strangers life is superogatory.
But, in the modern day United States, as opposed to some feudal country with walled cities designed to keep out vagabonds, allowing some person or group of people to escape from disaster by walking through your town isn't superogatory, it's not the kind of thing that you go, "Wow, that guy is so moral." It's fucking obligatory. Threatening people with violence to prevent them from doing this is forbidden by any system of ethics worth the name.
Aw, go back to your textbooks, philosopher boy. And I say that with my shotgun pointed at your pointy hay-ud.
I, for one, appreciate the fact that snees swaggers in here every couple of weeks to insult everyone, before he goes back to not-dating Lucy Mangan.
Land where the cajuns died
Land of ign'r'nt pride
From countrys far and wide
Expats sing thank god, not me
i agree. that is quite good. chopper may be the new francis scott key.
NB: i am ignoring ogged's jibe. far be it from me to point out that the main theme of this entire blog is that women want nothing to do with its host.
don't worry about it, chopper, ogged can help you on it between dates.
touche. the principle theme, then?
aren't we so very civilized here when we call each other homos?
Listen, if a man is willing to post in a public forum about how he appreciates another man's swagger, how many dots need to be connected?
washerdreyer: Are my brownie-points not good enough for you? Sup-er-og-a-tor-ee. You can't walk through my town now.
how many dots need to be connected?
Kink will out.
so, then, commenters, ogged's, er, confused sexuality: discuss.
SuperERogatory.
For mercy's sake.
Right, I'm going home and writing a paper on supereroggedation.
Yeah, I knew (suspected at least) that I was spelling it wrong, but that comment took me longer than I would have liked as is, so I didn't take the time to check.
Is it actually illegal to bar someone from your town? I agree that it should be, but I believe that many, if not most, of the old vagrancy laws allowed towns to expel people. I wonder if they've all been repealed or struck down?
Also, Palo Alto has a public park whose public consists only of residents of Palo Alto - or so I've been told by someone who was denied entry there not so long ago.
the principle theme, then?
Or the principal theme, even.
old vagrancy laws allowed towns to expel people
I believe that they allowed towns to expel people as punishment for the crime of vagrancy. Closing the town's borders to law-abiding (certainly not yet shown to be otherwise) citizens is a different matter. On the other point, restricting the use of local amenities to locals is conventional, and still goes on in many places. The public thoroughfares are not such restrictable amenities.
The public thoroughfares are not such restrictable amenities.
This seems to be the key point: they at least had to let them through. I do wonder about California's attempt to stop people at the (Arizona) border in the 1930s and turn them back if they couldn't demonstrate adequate means to support themselves in the state, but I doubt such a practice would be enforceable now. (I can't remember if it was even legal then, either.)
restricting the use of local amenities
This weekend, my roomate and I were pondering mugging someone for a key to Grammercy park. Yes, the park requires a key.
I believe it's private property -- not city owned.
And I grew up about ten blocks away and seethed with envy every time I walked by. I don't think I've ever been inside to this day.
OT, but it is about abused authority: Muller: 4th Cir. on Padilla. I hate these fucking Reds so much; it's like they're actually trying to kill me by showing me various horrors in quick succession.
Yeah, I've been reading the opinion, the .pdf is here.
Those rat bastards in the 4th Cir. are counting on a shiny new Supreme Court to let them do this. Crap.
Yeah, there's no point in asking for en banc, given who would be doing the review.
Also, it turns out you pay for the key to Grammercy even if you do live there.
she would enroll in school or somethin Internet Casinos and over again as I lied in my bed at home It was very therapeutic And.