Comment by phendrenad2
5 days ago
People are consistently surprised when the government doesn't operate exactly according to the letter of the law. There are ample opportunities to learn this before you get to this point. Jaywalking may be illegal but people do it right in front of a cop and get away with it. Likewise plenty of things that are perfectly legal attract law enforcement attention. If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble. And yes, I'm victim-blaming, because the victim is partially to blame.
> If you asked 100 people on the street if that letter constitutes a threat, I believe that 5-10% would say yes, so sending something like that is definitely asking for trouble
Something is "asking for trouble" if a tiny minority think it is? I think not. That would be extreme minority rule, not democracy.
If you ask 100 reasonable people if that letter constitutes a threat, and 90-95% say "no", then the remaining 5-10% should accept that their opinions are unreasonable, and defer to reasonable people, and drop the matter.
Black people constitute 13% of the US. Should opinions exclusive to black communities be ignored and dismissed as unreasonable?
Could you be more specific? Which opinions about what could cause trouble, held exclusively by black people, are you referring to?
4 replies →
Minorities often seek to engage in witch hunts. Opinions should never matter when it comes to law enforcement. The facts and logic should. The fact is that even if a minority assert the email to be a threat, upon probing there is no way they can explain why or how it is threat.
An objective analysis should be sought. You can read one by cgpt in its shared conversation ID 6a46a4f2-82fc-83ea-89bf-de6e6108070c which clearly determines it is not a threat.
2 replies →
People who are empowered to enact violence on behalf of the state must be held to a higher standard than random citizens.
Anything other than absolute adherence to the letter of the law is completely unacceptable from any part of the government.
That may be so, but it's unlikely that a jury would find him guilty. Moreover, those 5-10% would probably not be able to narrow or support their allegation if probed.