the Rights of "Possible" Terrorist Suspects.. What Level Should They be Afforded?

Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough?

the Church basically allowed the Killer to shoot 2 people before they gunned down the Killer... Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You made one of the most ridiculous comments I've ever seen on Eccie!

I didn't read any more of your posts .... but I can imagine you've been trying to explain your assessment, which is impossible to do.

so far I have viewed 2 posts from Stalkers, and the rest are general statements that don't address anything I posted. how about I narrow the focus?

you guys seem to think the Church Shooter had some kind of rights to be there, and not be questioned? what is improper about insisting her remove his coat as he entered the premises? Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You are on a roll there Mr. Tran and certainly ratcheting up your holier than thou attitude aren't you?

So let me get this straight. If we don't respond to one of your threads fast enough we don't care. If we do respond to one of your threads we'll either get the wrath of being called a stalker, or that we don't address the precious little nugget of detail you are trying to get to.

In this instance you make some ridiculous proposal that the church goers or even the security guard should have been prescient in somehow "searching" this assailant.

Hindsight is 20-20 and I bet moving forward this church institutes a higher level of security, but to try and turn this around in any way that the church and or security were at fault for not searching or interrogating this guy at the door is ridiculous at face value.

He was "dealt" with as soon as possible after starting the altercation.

He was "dealt" with as soon as possible after starting the altercation. Originally Posted by eccielover

Actually, he was killed in a shorter period of time than Tran took to decide to start this stupid thread .... 3-6 seconds .... and according to the guy who killed him he didn't have a clear shot for a couple of seconds so I said 3-6 ... seconds.

Tran can't whine about the "gun control" issue, because this wasn't a "military style" firearm or handgun, so now he wants to whine because people aren't strip searched when entering a church!!!!

Rights should Never be given up for any reason,

Rights should Never be given up for any reason, Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Speaking of ... it's been amusing (somewhat) that the LameStreamMedia is reporting that Texas law "allowed" individuals to carry a firearm into a church .... and additionally there is no mention of the type of firearm the dead church-goer brought into the church .... a shotgun .... although it looked a bit short for a legal shotgun ... which if correct was already illegal to have in the first place.

So NOW the anti-gun LOONS will rant about making an illegal shotgun against the law to carry into a church! That will take care of LoonyTran's search before entering the church! All security personnel carry measuring tapes!

Rights should Never be given up for any reason, Originally Posted by rexdutchman

what "rights"? the Killer doesn't have a right to walk on to private property carrying a firearm with intent to kill. are you against asking him to remove his coat? none of you will answer that. it is the same as when I go to an event, and place keys, phone in the container, and get wanded. I purchased a ticket, a "right" to be there, but I still am subject to search.

what's funny is you are the same Bullshitters who railed against my anti-TSA thread, saying the TSA are Patriots who carry out search duties to "protect us".. yet this Killer gets a pass.. you are phonies.

In this instance you make some ridiculous proposal that the church goers or even the security guard should have been prescient in somehow "searching" this assailant.
Originally Posted by eccielover

it is not prescient at all.. it was OBVIOUS this guy was up to no good. I would have demanded he remove his coat, had I been in charge of security. you would have done what did happen, which is ALLOW 2 people to get gunned down, murdered.

I bet before the year is out, one of the murdered men's families will have a lawsuit against the Church.. right now they have to play the game, show sorrow, heap praise.. but they are Lawyering up, believe me.

CT - you speak from the viewpoint of the retrospectoscope - which is always 20/20.

This country is not Vietnam under Mao - you read that correctly.

The Bill of Rights means something here - and people are not arrested/stopped/frisked for "I think he is suspicious" - not even anymore in NYC where the politicians hate and undermine their Police Force.

You are gung ho after this shooter - but defining violent threats prospectively is something far different.

Detaining and searching a homeless person entering a church is not acceptable in our society - it is not done - and if done - the DPST lawyers would have a field day sueing the church , members, and anyone within 20 miles of the incident.

I encourage you to try to enter the field of institutional security - and learn some real life lessons. .

The Bill of Rights means something here - and people are not arrested/stopped/frisked for "I think he is suspicious" - not even anymore in NYC where the politicians hate and undermine their Police Force.

Detaining and searching a homeless person entering a church is not acceptable in our society - it is not done - and if done - the DPST lawyers would have a field day sueing the church , members, and anyone within 20 miles of the incident.
Originally Posted by oeb11

at least you are trying to be reasonable, not stalking me with Bullshit like the other Rightists in this thread, which is why I don't lump you in with them..

how is this different from when I enter a Stadium or Concert Hall, and I am REQUIRED to hold up my phone, or place it, with keys, coins, etc., in a small container, and go through a metal detector? how is that ok, and asking a guy to remove his coat is not?

remember, this guy is not just a homeless-looking guy.. he wore a BULKY coat in somewhat mild temperature conditions, and wore a disguise, fake beard, that everyone could see. if he did not have BOTH.. the disguise and bulky coat, I would side with you.. but IMO, he should have been searched. you are concerned about the Church getting sued for "discrimination", but after letting 2 people get murdered, the Church has a lot more to worry about.

I think the difference is "security measures in place as a defined protocol for all" - v an "off the cuff" selection of "suspicious individuals" based upon individual, non-protocol decisions not supported by policy/protocols and applied equally to all individuals entering an institution.

Remember - "search and seizure" requires probable cause under our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and law system/legal precedent.




How many small churches have the means to institute metal detectors and searches for services?
And how many small churches see a need for such intrusive searches for services.



Does the Church have something to worry about - will members sue their own church for this incident? Very doubtful. Will family members of the deceased sue the church? Very doubtful. Does the church have any liability - even in America where liability lawyers run rampant? Doubtful.


Behavior of the Homeless, mentally ill is unpredictable - and a tragedy occurred here. No question.

Rather than instituting Fascist strip searches upon "suspicion" - a reasonable discussion by the church, and other institutions who feel they might be at risk - address concerns such as this prospectively is appropriate - to weigh the miniscule risk of a shooter attack v the loss of personal freedom, expense, and interference with worship that goes with clamping down with detectors and universal searches.



Who wants to demand every old lady remove her coat to enter worship????
Again - see the Tom Cruise movie minority report.



To my mind - the search upon suspicion policy you advocate, CT, with all respect, is a Fascist policy.

In a country in which individual freedom "Trumps" search and seizure without probable cause - your thoughts are a non-starter.


And - Thank You Sir for the respect and cogent and constructive debate.

I do try to debate you respectfully - You deserve it.

thanks for your reasonable response.. and again, you stand apart from almost every other Right Wing-thinker on this Board. I do not believe 90% of the Right on this Board has the intellectual capacity, or patience, to explain and defend their positions on anything.

I get your thinking, and it is well thought out, BUT.. I still believe that in this particular situation, given the bulky coat, the obvious disguise, and the fact that this Killer was at least a minor nuisance previously (yeah, they didn't know this was him, I understand..).. the Head Security Guy should have been more "on the ball".. they were all watching him closely, which is why they got him in 6 seconds.. they knew in their Hearts the guy was a THREAT. in my mind, you are excusing Security, saying they observed known protocol, and defended a shaky Bill of Rights idea that the Killer should be able to dress as he liked, go on to private property, and be left alone. I firmly disagree.

you are right about the lawsuit, it will go no where because of the "can't squeeze blood from a turnip" idea, not because the families would abhor the notion of suing.

and by the way, if the Killer was "clean", and was asked to remove his coat, I think he would be satisfied with doing so, just as we all go through metal detectors automatically after 911, without a thought. it is no different than the many stores that have posted signs.. "please leave your bags at the front", when you enter to shop. it is pro-active measure to reduce thefts.. nobody whines that they are considered to be Thieves, they do as the store asks.

at least you are trying to be reasonable, not stalking me with Bullshit like the other Rightists in this thread, which is why I don't lump you in with them..

how is this different from when I enter a Stadium or Concert Hall, and I am REQUIRED to hold up my phone, or place it, with keys, coins, etc., in a small container, and go through a metal detector? how is that ok, and asking a guy to remove his coat is not?

remember, this guy is not just a homeless-looking guy.. he wore a BULKY coat in somewhat mild temperature conditions, and wore a disguise, fake beard, that everyone could see. if he did not have BOTH.. the disguise and bulky coat, I would side with you.. but IMO, he should have been searched. you are concerned about the Church getting sued for "discrimination", but after letting 2 people get murdered, the Church has a lot more to worry about. Originally Posted by Chung Tran

You passed on reasonableness back at the beginning. So and so looked funny...arrest them. That woman didn't look me in the eye...beat her. He shouldn't be wearing sneakers at a formal event...detain him. I think that person looks gay, Muslim, Jewish, or black...shoot them down. Another legal lesson from Tran the man. God help us.

You passed on reasonableness back at the beginning. So and so looked funny...arrest them. That woman didn't look me in the eye...beat her. He shouldn't be wearing sneakers at a formal event...detain him. I think that person looks gay, Muslim, Jewish, or black...shoot them down. Another legal lesson from Tran the man. God help us. Originally Posted by the_real_Barleycorn

your post is absurd. none of what you said is true. why do you bother?

you prove my point about the lack of intellectual capacity, and rank incoherency of the Right-Wing Fascists on this Board.

Boring...

So CT your saying no right to a fair court trail ? No right to walk down the street without "show me your papers,? THAT what I said about rights
And yes the shotgun looked very short ( illegal) but the LSM is not going to follow up much because it wasn't a """Black AR "