This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - pick
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:29:45 PM »
Things function in these societies bureaucratically, based on the laws, drawn and enforced by the governments, the ones that same people elected to govern them.
So they do not, for instance, go and kill their fellow citizen to get even for him having say, raped, their child - they address the issue with the government - take the guy to the courts of law.
The government, on the other hand, has to abide by a set of norms (laws) and not overstep them, abusing the power conferred on it by the people. It can not curtail their citizens' liberties, for instance, overtly or covertly, unless good cause is shown first.
It can not resort to illegal tactics and strategies that by actually being used and reluctantly endorsed by its citizens have the effect of legitimizing them, with the end result being over-accumulation of power, beyond that that was originally intended to be invested, and conferred, by the people onto their government.
And so, the more innocent their victim of persecution, the more afraid people will be - as they too might as well be in the victim's place - with more and more power that governments will be able to steal from the people.
Will you walk me 2 my car [...] would not allow a certain branch of the government go off the limits and employ "illegal" tactics, as you say, on its citizens - the executive body, would need, for instance, a warrant from a judge (the legislative), which would make the tactic that you talk about, "legal."
Assuming, of course, that they use the "warrant" (if they ever get one) to do exactly what the warrant was asked for and provided for - but, honey, with all the * & ^ % we've heard the American government has done, even on its own people - sincerely I can't give you much credit here!
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:28:37 PM »
But of course - these are the kinds of nihilistic killers - there is a movie "Mr. Brooks" which depicts a guy who killed people for the hell of it..
Examining his modus operandi, from the fastidious preparation and cleaning up of the crime scene before departing, it looks like Brooks was obsessed with not getting caught (he responds to Smith's inquiry as to whether the person they would agree on killing could be someone who he knew, by saying, that you never kill someone you know, that's the surest way to get caught) - and yet, as Smith lies dying, Brooks reveals that he used many different MOs before becoming the meticulous Thumbprint Killer.
Serial offenders modify and perfect their MO as they become more adept at what they do. The improvement or slight adjustment to an offender's MO is something for investigators to bear in mind in analyzing a criminal pattern over time and formulating a behavioral profile. This is especially true in the first stages of profiling when the investigator begins his or her profile from the paradigm of the Organized/Disorganized continuum.
L Liberty, how about copy-cat crimes - offenders that copy the MO/signature of other offenders reported in the media or described in fiction?
« on: February 15, 2012, 05:25:48 PM »
4) The town's obsession with the Buckeyes would get very annoying, real quick. Case in point, I saw a huge billboard supporting their athletic director. After all the scandals they've had that seemed odd to me that the university would publicly support him, and even stranger that they would rent out a billboard to make this point so brazenly, as if they needed to convince themselves and run a PR campaign on the whole town so that everyone's reality doesn't crumble.
That's nothing! Have you not noticed public (state-funded) universities serving as mouthpieces for private companies, putting up their ads on their buildings?! Such universities and colleges are not by tradition or designation open for public communication, but are used for business/education/other devoted purposes.
The State reserves such non-public property for its intended purpose; they are considered non-public forums and include courthouses, jails, government offices, city halls and public schools. While State property that is a non-public forum is required to be open for its devoted purposes, it is not required to be open to the public for other expressive purposes.
Remember that we're not talking here about a walkway from public street or sidewalk leading up to University building -- some open public forum sidewalk not so delineated as to put speaker on notice that s/he has entered some special enclave where speech is not protected -- a case that would be a "grey area" in this field of law -- we're talking the actual buildings of such universities.
Which does not make sense, by extension, because it would be like the government exercising its First Amendment rights - which do not exist, since only individuals (later on corporations included) have such rights. It's like the arbiter of a football game assuming the role of a player.