Kathryn Knott Case |
||
|
Kathryn Knott Case
Only good terrorist is a dead terrorist
We have had 2 instances of domestic terrorism in the last 15 years, the 2nd was far less devastating than the 1st, that constitutes a decline in terrorism. And, no, there is not and should not be a correlation between terrorism and infringement of civil liberties.
Odin.Jassik said: » We have had 2 instances of domestic terrorism in the last 15 years, the 2nd was far less devastating than the 1st, that constitutes a decline in terrorism. And, no, there is not and should not be a correlation between terrorism and infringement of civil liberties. (good read - its available on audible if you want to listen to it on your way to work -"Taking Liberties" The Patriot Act, which came as a direct result of terrorism? -"Under the so-called “library provision” of the USA PATRIOT Act, the government can demand that custodians of records – including librarians, schools, social work institutions, and internet service providers (who, in these days of cloud computing, have access to a mind-boggling array of information about us) — turn over those records without having to explain to a court why they want those records, or whether the person who is the subject of the records has done anything suspicious." -Under the expanded “National Security Letter,” the FBI and other agencies can demand some records from telecommunications and financial services providers without any court order at all and then gag the recipients. -Patriot Act amendments let the government spy on Americans using a Cold War era statute designed for tracking the covert activities of Soviet agents. What is prism all about? Les not forget that air travel has changed forever. These are just the political results, with far reaching implications for the future if this trend continues and is not rectified. There are also social and psychological dispositions that have also been altered as a result, perhaps for generations to come. Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. It appears he also has some internal inconsistencies. (Don't see him responding or giving much - probably thinking of smart way to back pedal even though I gave him several opportunities to) Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. In other words, the link between foreign policy and domestic terrorism is conjecture at best, and it's still irrelevent to the issue of the violation of the civil rights of american citizens. It also has nothing to do with this thread, and blazed has repeatedly injected that topic into threads without justification. Odin.Jassik said: » It also has nothing to do with this thread, and blazed has repeatedly injected that topic into threads without justification. I agree. Her case is being made to be an example regarding Pennsylvania hate crime laws now. The DA doesn't seem like he's going to go easy on the three of them... Hundreds gather in LOVE Park to call for better law against hate Quote: Carrying signs and wielding umbrellas in the rain, hundreds of Philadelphia residents and officials gathered in Love Park Thursday calling for state lawmakers to extend hate crime protections to the LGBT communities. State Rep. Brian Sims organized the gathering in response to a recent attack on two gay men in his district. "Our state has a moral responsibility to address hate crimes, and we remain complicit if we fail to pass hate crimes legislation that protects those of us that are lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender -- or even perceived to be," Sims said. Sims applauded the work of Philly law enforcement in handling the case. Caryn Kunkle, a friend of the victims, also spoke at Love Park. "On Sept. 11 of this year, a group of young people came to my city to have a good time," Kunkle said. "At 10:30 at night in Rittenhouse, they opened a conversation with my friends by asking the question, 'Is that your f---ing boyfriend?' And that conversation quickly devolved into a nationally broadcast incident." Philip Williams, 24, Katherine Knott, 24, and Kevin Harrigan, 26, all of Bucks County, have been charged in the attack. State Sen. Larry Farnese, who vowed to work with Sims in Harrisburg to pass the legislation, said he was particularly startled by the ages of the alleged attackers. "The millennials, as we talk about them, they're the ones that are supposed to lead us, that are supposed to look past all of the problems and the bigotry and the bias that we, my generation and ones before, have put up with," Farnese said. "And the fact that they are involved with this -- that ... scares the hell out of me." City Council President Darrell Clarke delivered a blunt message to potential visitors "This is some serious stuff. We're not having that here. Right? You can't figure out a way to conduct yourself in the city of Philadelphia, guess what, don't come here!" he said. "We're not having that here!" Philadelphia City Council is also working on protections for the LGBT community. Philadelphia District Attorney Seth Williams has called the attack 'vicious' and said he fully supports the hate crimes legislation. "The victims don't own the case," Williams said. "A crime against anyone, we believe, is a crime against all of us." Much work remains to be done by lawmakers and Philadelphians, said Chris Bartlett, executive director of the William Way LGBT Center. "And perhaps in our lifetime or the lifetime of our children, a hate crimes law will be unnecessary," Batrlett said City Councilman Jim Kenney agreed that laws alone can not achieve "true equality." "Transphobia and homophobia have always been deeply embedded in American culture, as we were brutally reminded two weeks ago," he said. "Our children are still growing up in a country where LGBT people are seen as an 'other.'" Calling on Harrisburg to act, Kenney said, "We are no longer handing out trophies for merely 'tolerating' gay people. 'Tolerance' is just a polite way of saying, 'Fine, we'll let you have your marriage equality but take it somewhere else where I don't have to see it.'" Sims will co-chair a public hearing on LGBT hate crimes Oct. 2 at the Kimmel Center. Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. In other words, the link between foreign policy and domestic terrorism is conjecture at best, and it's still irrelevent to the issue of the violation of the civil rights of american citizens. It also has nothing to do with this thread, and blazed has repeatedly injected that topic into threads without justification. Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. It appears he also has some internal inconsistencies. (Don't see him responding or giving much - probably thinking of smart way to back pedal even though I gave him several opportunities to) Fenrir.Candlejack said: » Welp, there goes the neighborhood. I knew if Pennsylvania did nothing after this, that the ACLU and the feds would come in and turn it into a full-blown civil rights case. The state's acting ahead of time, it seems, to try and prevent that from happening. As for Jassik being an idiot, what would you guys expect from him and Jet? They're both trolls and both need to be banned for a while. Fenrir.Candlejack said: » As for Jassik being an idiot, what would you guys expect from him and Jet? They're both trolls and both need to be banned for a while. Fenrir.Candlejack said: » Welp, there goes the neighborhood. I knew if Pennsylvania did nothing after this, that the ACLU and the feds would come in and turn it into a full-blown civil rights case. Pennsylvania doesn't have hate crime laws that extend to LGBT minorities. It is a bit unfair that she's being made the SOLE example in this case solely to push for LGBT hate crime laws in that state. Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. In other words, the link between foreign policy and domestic terrorism is conjecture at best, and it's still irrelevent to the issue of the violation of the civil rights of american citizens. It also has nothing to do with this thread, and blazed has repeatedly injected that topic into threads without justification. It's conjecture because it is irrelevant. They are carrying out successful terrorist acts against groups and governments that aren't involved in the practices you guys claim are the root of it and haven't carried out a successful attack here. Documents show that there hasn't been a marked rise in terrorist plots or activities since 9/11. Even the UN's assessment cites internal conflicts, social inequality, and desperation as root causes. You say I'm naive, but there isn't solid data linking them, and this is exactly the reason I haven't taken part in any of the middle east threads. Fenrir.Candlejack said: » rarely do you hear about women beating men This is true. If the men would have been heterosexual, this probably wouldn't have escalated in the media so quickly. If a woman assaults a heterosexual man, we as a society do turn the cheek. If a woman assaults a homosexual man we crucify her. Sounds fair jk lol. EDIT: Then again heterosexual men aren't usually a target of hate crimes. Bahamut.Baconwrap said: » Fenrir.Candlejack said: » rarely do you hear about women beating men This is true. If the men would have been heterosexual, this probably wouldn't have escalated in the media so quickly. If a woman assaults a heterosexual man, we as a society do turn the cheek. If a woman assaults a homosexual man we crucify her. Sounds fair jk lol. ![]() I, personally, look forward to the day when someone's orientation really is a non-issue. Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Blazed1979 said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Odin.Jassik said: » Leviathan.Chaosx said: » 4th amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." and is no longer applicable. Most of the amendments have been bypassed. People are really struggling to hold on to the first two. Yes, I meant 6th, had just finished a report on internet security. Most of the amendments haven't been bypassed, they're being violated. And just because we have apparently lost some of our rights, why should we surrender others just so some people can feel they have the moral highground? As to your question why, terrorism or security, your pick. The root causes? I assume you're saying that US foreign relations cause terrorism and that we're in some kind of danger because of it? You have no idea what you're talking about. The only people that connect constitutional infringement by "tackling the root causes of terrorism" are completely misinformed. In other words, the link between foreign policy and domestic terrorism is conjecture at best, and it's still irrelevent to the issue of the violation of the civil rights of american citizens. It also has nothing to do with this thread, and blazed has repeatedly injected that topic into threads without justification. It's conjecture because it is irrelevant. They are carrying out successful terrorist acts against groups and governments that aren't involved in the practices you guys claim are the root of it and haven't carried out a successful attack here. Documents show that there hasn't been a marked rise in terrorist plots or activities since 9/11. Even the UN's assessment cites internal conflicts, social inequality, and desperation as root causes. You say I'm naive, but there isn't solid data linking them, and this is exactly the reason I haven't taken part in any of the middle east threads. So more details on the case and Knott.
Gay-Bashing Victims Were Punched, Called “***” Repeatedly, Court Doc Claims Quote: According to that document, the incident began when "words were exchanged" between the two groups of people, with suspect Kevin Harrigan allegedly calling the victims "***" several times before a "heated argument developed." The affidavit also alleges that Knott screamed "***" at them and hit one of them in the face. Any idea when the trial starts?
Nope, that's what I've been waiting to hear. I'm sure the Philadelphia DA will say something this week.
Odin.Jassik said: » We have had 2 instances of domestic terrorism in the last 15 years, the 2nd was far less devastating than the 1st, that constitutes a decline in terrorism. And, no, there is not and should not be a correlation between terrorism and infringement of civil liberties. But we must Save the Children Leviathan.Chaosx said: » Any idea when the trial starts? December I believe. They victims released a statement today: Quote: Everyone keeps saying that they are sorry this happened to us. But the truth is, we’re sorry. We feel sorry for our attackers — people who believed it was OK, cool, maybe even funny, to use two innocent individuals as their punching bags and not even have the decency to apologize. Words are powerful. A simple, I’m sorry, would’ve went a long way with us ... “You butchered my boyfriend’s beautiful face. You violated our rights. You jeopardized our health and safety in a city that we love and during a time where so much progress around human rights has been made. ... We are also determined to do everything in our power to make sure this doesn’t happen to anyone else again.” The men said they haven’t released their identity because the story is not about them, but everyone who lives in fear. They called for passage of a hate crime bill in Pennsylvania. “It stops here. It stops today. It stops now. Philly Gay Bashing Victims Release Statement At 'Love Over Hate' Rally |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||