[ssiikmuz]

Trust me, leave this to the professionals.

Doesn't his scenario say that the 'professionals' will not or cannot act?

Andrew

[LillyPlay]

You know they're going to bomb a school.

That school just happens to be your daughter's school.

Do you wait for the attack to happen before you kill them?

Is there a clear and present danger?
Are they crossing the schoolyard with explosives, while I just happen to be there holding a loaded gun?
Or is this a conversation I overhear between the waiters at a middle eastern restaurant?
If it's situation where there is time to inform the authorities, then inform the authorities. If there's a clear and present danger, take action to prevent it.

But if you are going to shoot the waiter when he brings the falafel because you think you heard him talking a blowing up a school, get a good lawyer, and prepare to spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.

[geaveheadeNox]

What day? You only know they're going to attack it; you don't know when...

So you know for sure that an attack is planned, but you have no evidence or information to give the police to get them to take action?

I find it hard to imagine a scenario, where I would have certain knowledge about a pending terrorist attack, and certain knowledge that law enforcement officials will totally ignore the threat.

[Dstyeglm]

But if you are going to shoot the waiter when he brings the falafel because you think you heard him talking a blowing up a school, get a good lawyer, and prepare to spend a non-trivial amount of time in prison.

High 5

This is exactly the kind of things that worries me about this fantasy scenario.

And just think about this, "the authorities refuse to act".

Look, we are living in the post-911 age. Where somebody darting past a security screening shuts down an airport for hours. Where just the suspicion of "Terrorist Activity" brings in everything short of an M1 tank and an air strike to bring the perps down. And I am supposed to believe that the Government will refuse to act?

The more I hear of the scenario, the more I hear "psychotic paranoid individual". The authorities are refusing to act, because the individual learned about the attack from the neighbor's dog. And they are doing nothing because the individual is clearly a nutcase.

[abubycera]

No, I would report it to the appropriate authorities and let them take care of it.

Now let me clarify, there is a difference between Self Defense, and Vigilantism.

I fully support the right of any individual to protect themselves. However, it sounds more like you are wanting to allow the "hunting" of terrorists, and that I do not support.

After all, what is next? And who is a terrorist? A lot of people would claim (and with justification) that drug dealers and gang members are Terrorists. Should we go out hunting them also?

And remember, I support self defense, but nobody has the right to kill another person. A person's death in the event of self defense is a consequence, but should never be the intent. Not to long ago there was a guy convicted of murder because after shooting a robber, he then gave the perp a "finishing shot" while he was laying on the ground.

*tips his cap to Mushroom*

arrrr! mate, i was goin' to vote "yes", but yer response seems so reasonable and thought out, i changed me mind.

*votes "no"*

- MeadHallPirate

[Dynasty]

If we knew about terrorists within our borders, and those terrorists had threatened an attack within our borders, and no government agency would take action to stop them, would we, as citizens, be justified in killing them?

If we had proof of what they were doing and connections to other acts, we, as citizens do have the right to mobilize against them and draw them out. I answered "yes" to your poll becuase there was no "yes - but". What you're talking about is lynching, and that is not anything we can get away with. The best we can do, which isn't a bad idea really, is to draw them out on undisputable truth and set them up for arrest in some way.

It's a bitch living a in a free democratic republic with habeas corpus ain't it?

[JosephEL]

*sighs, shaking head*

No, that is not what I am saying at all. In fact, out of everybody on this board I would probably have the most experience in actually doing something about this kind of event. I have the training needed, the experience, and even the equipment.

Son, I'll put my training, experience, and equipment against yours any time.

Seriously; we know you're an American fighting man.

But you might want to consider that you're not the only one here who's ever been one...

Trust me, leave this to the professionals. It's a hypothetical scenario. You would either kill them or you wouldn't.

Since you say it should be left to the "professionals", I'll assume that wouldn't include you, so I'll go ahead and count that as a "no"...

[Tauntenue]

Doesn't his scenario say that the 'professionals' will not or cannot act?

Well, it does.

I just didn't see the point in pointing out the obvious to someone who, apparently, thinks he's Rambo...

[Ngdyoysv]

So you know for sure that an attack is planned, but you have no evidence or information to give the police to get them to take action?

Yes, there is evidence but, no, the police or other government authorities will not take action despite it...

I find it hard to imagine a scenario, where I would have certain knowledge about a pending terrorist attack, and certain knowledge that law enforcement officials will totally ignore the threat. It's a hypothetical. If you can't answer it; if you're on of those people who would allow terrorists to carry out their attack, and sit back and do nothing, you should answer "no" in the poll...

[Grzqbmhy]

Is there a clear and present danger?
Are they crossing the schoolyard with explosives, while I just happen to be there holding a loaded gun?
Or is this a conversation I overhear between the waiters at a middle eastern restaurant?

You hear your waiter say "We're leaving now to blow up the local elementary school"...

[Uojeyak]

You know they're going to bomb a school.

That school just happens to be your daughter's school.

Do you wait for the attack to happen before you kill them?

Of course not! I'd likely be prosecuted for murder, but I'd feel justified. Hopefully, a jury would feel the same way.

[Inettypofonee]

High 5

This is exactly the kind of things that worries me about this fantasy scenario.

And just think about this, "the authorities refuse to act".

Look, we are living in the post-911 age. Where somebody darting past a security screening shuts down an airport for hours. Where just the suspicion of "Terrorist Activity" brings in everything short of an M1 tank and an air strike to bring the perps down. And I am supposed to believe that the Government will refuse to act?

The more I hear of the scenario, the more I hear "psychotic paranoid individual". The authorities are refusing to act, because the individual learned about the attack from the neighbor's dog. And they are doing nothing because the individual is clearly a nutcase.

Let's put this in a perspective you might just understand. Let's say you meet a man who has a 23 year old son who has become a rather radical Muslim, has taken Al Qaeda training in Yemen and has expressed a desire to kill infidels. His father has reported him to the authorities, but they have not revoked his visa, nor put him on a no-fly list. You see him in a rest room at the Amsterdam airport stuffing a package into his underware. What do you do? The authorities have already shown a disinterest. Running to security is pointless.

[amusaasyday]

Let's put this in a perspective you might just understand. Let's say you meet a man who has a 23 year old son who has become a rather radical Muslim, has taken Al Qaeda training in Yemen and has expressed a desire to kill infidels. His father has reported him to the authorities, but they have not revoked his visa, nor put him on a no-fly list. You see him in a rest room at the Amsterdam airport stuffing a package into his underware. What do you do? The authorities have already shown a disinterest. Running to security is pointless.

So you kill him?

Remember, this is Amsterdam. More then likely he is simply doing a piss-poor job of smuggling some pot into the country. Or he might have been trying to hide some Cuban cigars. And I find it unbelieveable that security would not care about this kind of information.

Heck, just joking about having a bomb in an airport can get a person arrested.

BBC News Online | England | Cornwall | Airport bomb joke woman arrested
Airport Bomb Joke Foolish Ranting of a Deluded Soul
News Flash: "Shoe Bomb" Jokes Are Not Appropriate Airplane Banter - The Consumerist
Italian tourist arrested for bomb joke at Manila's airport | Mail Online
Bomb joke girl agrees to pay fine and apologise - Crime, UK - The Independent

OK, I think this is enough. But this is not 1980. Terrorism is taken very seriously. The Government is not going to ignore any kind of threat, no matter how stupid it is. Even comming off of a military charter flight in uniform, I was made to wait over 90 minutes because my name is on the "terrorism watch list".

[DeilMikina]

So you kill him?

Remember, this is Amsterdam. More then likely he is simply doing a piss-poor job of smuggling some pot into the country. Or he might have been trying to hide some Cuban cigars. And I find it unbelieveable that security would not care about this kind of information.

Heck, just joking about having a bomb in an airport can get a person arrested.

BBC News Online | England | Cornwall | Airport bomb joke woman arrested
Airport Bomb Joke Foolish Ranting of a Deluded Soul
News Flash: "Shoe Bomb" Jokes Are Not Appropriate Airplane Banter - The Consumerist
Italian tourist arrested for bomb joke at Manila's airport | Mail Online
Bomb joke girl agrees to pay fine and apologise - Crime, UK - The Independent

OK, I think this is enough. But this is not 1980. Terrorism is taken very seriously. The Government is not going to ignore any kind of threat, no matter how stupid it is. Even comming off of a military charter flight in uniform, I was made to wait over 90 minutes because my name is on the "terrorism watch list".

Hey! Don't you read the papers? The scenario I described happened Christmas day, except for the part about someone seeing the azzole stuff the package in his pants. The young man's father talked to CIA TWICE and he was still able to board a US bound plane.

[alanamosteller]

So you kill him?

Remember, this is Amsterdam. More then likely he is simply doing a piss-poor job of smuggling some pot into the country. Or he might have been trying to hide some Cuban cigars. And I find it unbelieveable that security would not care about this kind of information.

Heck, just joking about having a bomb in an airport can get a person arrested.

BBC News Online | England | Cornwall | Airport bomb joke woman arrested
Airport Bomb Joke Foolish Ranting of a Deluded Soul
News Flash: "Shoe Bomb" Jokes Are Not Appropriate Airplane Banter - The Consumerist
Italian tourist arrested for bomb joke at Manila's airport | Mail Online
Bomb joke girl agrees to pay fine and apologise - Crime, UK - The Independent

OK, I think this is enough. But this is not 1980. Terrorism is taken very seriously. The Government is not going to ignore any kind of threat, no matter how stupid it is. Even comming off of a military charter flight in uniform, I was made to wait over 90 minutes because my name is on the "terrorism watch list".

Wow, that's so fucking interesting.

It has nothing to do with my question, though.

My scenario has absolutely nothing to do with the Christmas day attempted bombing. Nothing.

It's a simple question.

And, yet, you seem vexed...

[Xiciljed]

Son, I'll put my training, experience, and equipment against yours any time.

Seriously; we know you're an American fighting man.

But you might want to consider that you're not the only one here who's ever been one...

Well, we all have different experiences. But mine are a bit unique. In addition to being Infantry, I spent my first 4 years as force security at a Naval Weapons Station, guarding both conventional and Special weapons.

And during my last 3, I taught and conducted live fire ranges at the Marine Corps Security Force school, and FAST Company.

So yea, I have a lot more specialized training in this kind of thing then your run of the mill "Servicemember".

[Sensbachtal]

Well, we all have different experiences. But mine are a bit unique. In addition to being Infantry, I spent my first 4 years as force security at a Naval Weapons Station, guarding both conventional and Special weapons.

And during my last 3, I taught and conducted live fire ranges at the Marine Corps Security Force school, and FAST Company.

So yea, I have a lot more specialized training in this kind of thing then your run of the mill "Servicemember".

And if you think I was a "run of the mill" servicemember, you would be mistaken.

Now, do you think you can forego trying to diver this conversation to anything about Amsterdam and answer the question?

Do you think we, as citizens, should kill someone that we know is planning to conduct a terrorist attack, if our government has demonstrated that they will do nothing about it?

[Nabeqiv]

I say as an American and a man that I would. Whether it is justified under the eyes of the law is something that I would have to deal with. But as a man, I will do what I have to do and suffer the consequences of my actions without shame.

Edit: Of course I would have to be pretty damn sure that what I percieve is what is real and that I was the only one or most able to prevent the act from occurring.

Other than that I think it's a pretty easy answer for me.

[soyclocky]

Do you think we, as citizens, should kill someone that we know is planning to conduct a terrorist attack, if our government has demonstrated that they will do nothing about it?

No, I do not.

If you are at the scene if it happens, it is our oblligation and duty to try and prevent it, and apprehend the individuals if possible. If you have a Concealed Carry and are armed, it is perfectly resonable to use Deadly Force in doing so. And if they are killed, so be it.

But "we, as citizens, should kill someone" implies that we should not simply stop them, but execute them. And that is the wrong answer.

The "if we hear about it and the Government does nothing" once again steps beyond the bounds of simply being a bystander when it occurs, and takes you from bystander to vigilante.

You have to understand, I take this kind of thing very seriously. Even though I have not had to recite for 22 years, I can still say from memory both the definition of Deadly Force, but the 6 Justifications for it's use.

And you yourself just stated, that the people had not actually conducted an attack. They are only planning it. Well, that really means nothing. Remember, we live in a nation with laws and a Constitution. Not only is a person innocent until proven guilty, if they have not actually comitted a crime they have not done anything wrong.

Quite often, I find myself planning attacks and crimes. Most of that is simply part of my background, and the planning is part of prevention. At work we often talk about how we would attack our unit, in order to try and prevent such an attack. On a regular basis we "attack" ourselves, in order to protect us from attack.

And because I also worked Security as a civilian, I often find myself while I am in a store or in a bank, try to think of ways to commit a robbery. I have even talked to others I am with and swapped ideas about how to do it. But this is all simply a form of "mental masturbation", and we would never actually do it.

Last year, before our deployment here to the Sand Box, I was picked to be part of the OpFor in a field exercise. We left the site, got changed into civilian clothes, and over 2 nights conducted mock attacks on our site. And each night, we stopped at the local Carl's Jr. to plan the "operation" for the night (after eating MREs and field mess for 3 weeks, it was nice to get real food).

Now imagine somebody sitting by, listening to our plans. We were talking about what time we would start the attack, who would approach by what means, how we would breech the wire, and what weapons we would mount on the "Technical" (which was my Silverado). We were also practicing our "lines" that we would be saying during the approach, like "Allah Akbar" (God is great), "Al hamdu lillah" (Praise be to God), "Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam" (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), "Kol khara" (eat feeces), "Eben ahbe" (Son of a bitch), and "Kus umak" (kiss my tush). Then before we got into our vehicles, we would put on simulated explosive vests (made with road flares), head scarfs, and web belts with ammo pouches. And we all pulled from the trunks AK-47s and M-16s (Air soft models, but they looked real).

You would probably be sure we were gonna blow up the base. And if that person thought like you, you would be looking at 4-8 dead Soldiers who were simply doing their job.

[bestcigsnick]

No, I do not.


Now imagine somebody sitting by, listening to our plans. We were talking about what time we would start the attack, who would approach by what means, how we would breech the wire, and what weapons we would mount on the "Technical" (which was my Silverado). We were also practicing our "lines" that we would be saying during the approach, like "Allah Akbar" (God is great), "Al hamdu lillah" (Praise be to God), "Sallallahu alayhi wa sallam" (May Allah bless him and grant him peace), "Kol khara" (eat feeces), "Eben ahbe" (Son of a bitch), and "Kus umak" (kiss my tush). Then before we got into our vehicles, we would put on simulated explosive vests (made with road flares), head scarfs, and web belts with ammo pouches. And we all pulled from the trunks AK-47s and M-16s (Air soft models, but they looked real).

Hey, the cops will drop before anyone would have a chance. People have been blown away by cops for pulling out their wallets too fast!