[QUOTE=Bricker]
Authorities were criticized after the Columbine shooting for not taking web comments from the shooters seriously, were they not? What is the distinction between those web comments and this one?
[/QUOTE]
I don’t know anything about what the Columbine shooters said on the internet, so I can’t really offer an opinion. It depends on what they said. I wouldn’t necessarily agree that the authorities deserved any criticism for ignoring it.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I don’t see why anyone should have to be an adult or require parental permission to receive an emergency medical procedure. You’re comparing apples and oranges (not mention engaging in the very contradiction you think you’ve spotted in me, only in reverse).
[/quote]
You’re calling an abortion an “emergency medical procedure?” This is a procedure which may be scheduled days or weeks in advance? That can done on an outpatient basis?
I think it’s absolutely misleading to call it an emergency medical procedure. I grant that in some circumstances, it may in fact be an emergency procedure, and for those, I have no problem with failing to receive parental consent ot notify parents in advance. But the vast majority of abortions do not qualify as “emergency” medical procedures.
Nor do I agree that I’m committing the reserve error. We agree (I hope) that abortion is more serious a matter than brief questioning by police. So for us to treat her like a child for police questioning, then al achas cammo v’cammo, should we not treat her like a child even more for the issue of abortion. I toss the Hebrew in there because this is a very Talmudic type of reasoning, called cal v’chomar, “light and heavy”. If an argument applies to one situation, then applying it in even stronger circumstances is even more appropriate.
The reverse isn’t so clear. I argue she should be treated like a child for the serious issue of abortion, but it’s not harmful to treat her as an adult for the comparatively unserious matter of a brief police interview. As the issue becomes more serious - say, criminal charges - I’d say she should be moved into the child realm early on.
Got it. That was my error of supposition, based on your tone and choice of words.
One more thing with regard to Columbine – expressing an intent to shoot up a school is something a kid can actually do. Killing the President is not (not that this little girl expressed any such intent in the first place).
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
All they needed was an IQ over 14.
[/quote]
As the fallacy of division isn’t an act of reason or intelligence dio, comments like that just make your argument seem emotional and irrational.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I would argue that the girl didn’t even make a threat. wrote “Kill Bush” in an obviously hyperbolic way on a MySpace board (a message which she had already taken down before the SS showed up, by the way).
[/quote]
And I would argue that, without knowing more about the girl, that it could indeed be seen as either a threat or incitement. Reasonable people, even those with IQ’s over 14, can disagree.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
She didn’t express any specific intention to actally do anything, nor would she have the ability to even if she wanted to.
[/quote]
She espressed the specific intention to “kill Bush”. And any wackjob who can get their hands on a parent’s or friend’s parent’s gun can have the ability to take a shot at someone is they really want to.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I think in order for a threat to be credible, there has to actually be some realistic possibility that an individual to carry it out.
[/quote]
Which, despite your insults about their intellect, they couldn’t have known before learning the specifics of the situation.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
A little girl is no threat to GWB, no matter what she prattles about on the internet.
[/quote]
So you’d be willing to get within ten paces of a 14 year old holding a gun on you with murderous intent? She’s a little girl, after all. Right?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
If the SS has nothing better to do than investigate obvious false alarms,
[/quote]
Again you are casting irrationality about. One cannot know the specifics of a situation based on a hazy generalization.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I just think they could have better used their discretion and waited until the kid got home from school.
[/QUOTE]
I’d possibly agree with you on that, I’m not sure. It’s just that the underpinning to your argument is specious.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
One more thing with regard to Columbine – expressing an intent to shoot up a school is something a kid can actually do. Killing the President is not (not that this little girl expressed any such intent in the first place).
[/quote]
A kid with her dad’s gun can still fire a bullet as well as anybody else. Some lone nut in a the right place at the right time can take a shot at anybody. That’s not to say that most people, let alone untrained shooters, would have a good chance of hitting or killing the president… but that doesn’t mean that it’s not possible either.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
You’re calling an abortion an “emergency medical procedure?” This is a procedure which may be scheduled days or weeks in advance? That can done on an outpatient basis?
I think it’s absolutely misleading to call it an emergency medical procedure. I grant that in some circumstances, it may in fact be an emergency procedure, and for those, I have no problem with failing to receive parental consent ot notify parents in advance. But the vast majority of abortions do not qualify as “emergency” medical procedures.
[/quote]
I would say a pregnancy in a minor is an emergency medical crisis that she has every right to rectify without intrusion from the government.
I do not. Early abortions are routine, low-risk, innocuous procedures which are performed at the request of the individual in question. As to questioning by the police, you know good and well that any statements made to the police are always serious and can always be used against you.
I disagree that allowing a minor to make her own reproductive decisions is “treating her like an adult.” I would argue that we’re talking about a right that belongs to children and adults alike, not that we’re awarding an adult decision to a child.
Also, if a kid wants to talk to the police without a parent present, I wouldn’t say that a parent had to be notified, so I’m actually consistent in my position. I’m only critiquing a particular use of discretion, not agitating for a change of law.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Le sigh… preview is my friend. Thanks Miller.
Another link, shouldn’t require registration.
[/QUOTE]
Oh you and you “links” and “facts.”
Seriously though, the only thing I found really disturbing was this:
This, I don’t like. It strikes me as a bit brutish and disrespectful on the surface, it seems.
The child, of course, had a right to counsel, but was she made aware of this right? Do authorities have to make a Miranda statement only during arrest or during any form of questioning? There are other questions that need to be answered as well. Were the parents denied the right to be present during the questioning of their child? Was the child denied the right to contact her parents during the questioning? The issue here, I think, is that a 14 year old being carted away to a questioning room by National Security agents would likely be frightened out of her wits, and, aside form not thinking clearly about her rights to see her parents or ask for a lawyer, would probably be unaware of how to assert her rights. While an adult might be able to shake of the type of cop-show antics that may have gone on: “not answering questions makes you look guilty, Julia,” a frightened child might just take that sort of thing as gospel.
Of course, I’m assuming a great deal about the methods of questioning here, but it seems at best unprofessional on the part of the agents to snatch up a minor out of class without parental notification, simply because the potential for an abuse of authority or breach of ethics is so great.
Now I didn’t see anyone bring this up, but am I the only one wondering why intelligence agents are cruising MySpace looking for terrorists? We can’t be that hard up for info, considering the vast swaths of actionable information we’ve been torturing out of people the past few years…
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I would say a pregnancy in a minor is an emergency medical crisis that she has every right to rectify without intrusion from the government.
.
.
.
Early abortions are routine, low-risk, innocuous procedures which are performed at the request of the individual in question.
[/QUOTE]
As they used to sing on Sesame Street, one of these things does not belong here.
So the pregnancy is an “emergency medical crisis” which is resolved by a “routine, low-risk, innocuous procedures?”
I continue to aver you’re using the word “emergency” incorrectly.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Also, if a kid wants to talk to the police without a parent present, I wouldn’t say that a parent had to be notified, so I’m actually consistent in my position. I’m only critiquing a particular use of discretion, not agitating for a change of law.
[/QUOTE]
Ahh. Thanks. This is, I admit, a very good point. I withdraw my insinuation of a double-standard.
This bit here seems to support the conclusion that she was not a serious threat.
(emphasis added)
People who are dire threats or even serious potential threats, IMO, would be visted by someone long before a 5+ month gap (assuming “Spring” is approximately May). The Secret Service caseload might be high, but IIRC the local police can also be notified to do an “initial screening” of the person as well (based on an event that happened in this city with other jackasses making threats against Bush “in the name of peace”).
That having been said, I do not feel she was mistreated in the questioning in any way. Maybe she’ll learn a lesson instead of trying to become yet another self-serving MySpace “celebrity”.
[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Seriously though, the only thing I found really disturbing was this:This, I don’t like. It strikes me as a bit brutish and disrespectful on the surface, it seems.
[/quote]
I’d more likely than not agree with that. I’m still chewing it over a bit, and I’m not totally sure how I feel about it. That she should’ve been questioned seems like good sense, that she should’ve been questioned in such a manner… I’m not sure.
[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
The child, of course, had a right to counsel, but was she made aware of this right? Do authorities have to make a Miranda statement only during arrest or during any form of questioning? There are other questions that need to be answered as well. Were the parents denied the right to be present during the questioning of their child? Was the child denied the right to contact her parents during the questioning?
[/quote]
Alll good questions, and the infotainment style article I found certainly doesn’t do a very good job of answering 'em.
[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Of course, I’m assuming a great deal about the methods of questioning here, but it seems at best unprofessional on the part of the agents to snatch up a minor out of class without parental notification, simply because the potential for an abuse of authority or breach of ethics is so great.
[/quote]
I’d definitely be more likely to come down on the side of the kid and her parents in such a situation… but I can also see some other possibilities. If, for instance, the kid was actually planning some violence, it’d probably be counter-productive to have the parents in there talkin gabout what a sweet angel their child is. Maybe in a situation like that it’s better to provide a child with counsel before questioning begins.
Then again, I don’t know the statutes in force for such a situation, so that’s just my beer n’ pretzels opinion.
[QUOTE=Sweet Mercury]
Now I didn’t see anyone bring this up, but am I the only one wondering why intelligence agents are cruising MySpace looking for terrorists?
[/quote]
I thought that, more likely than not, one of her friends narked on her.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I concur that the only thing they did wrong was to interrogate her without her parents being present (or even being notified). Even a kid has a right to some kind of counsel.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t believe there’s any rule against an officer of the law asking a kid some questions. Must every cop be silent in the presence of anyone they’re dealing with who’s younger than 18?
The girl was not under arrest, now, had she been arrested, that would be a different story.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
And I find this standard amazing, Diogenes, not that you will ever, ever, ever acknowledge your own double standards. This is a kid old enough to get an abortion without parental consent or even notification, but if she’s merely asked questions by police officers, her parents MUST be there?
[/QUOTE]
In two years, she’ll be old enough to drive, but not old enough to vote. In four years, she’ll be old enough to vote, but not old enough to drink. Unless you consider that to be a double standard as well, I don’t see anything inconsistent with Dio thinking she should be treated like an adult in some respects, and a minor in others. It’s consistent, in general terms, with how we treat minors and young adults already.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As they used to sing on Sesame Street, one of these things does not belong here.
So the pregnancy is an “emergency medical crisis” which is resolved by a “routine, low-risk, innocuous procedures?”
I continue to aver you’re using the word “emergency” incorrectly.
[/QUOTE]
There are a lot of medical conditions which could be called “emergencies” or be extremely dangerous if left untreated but for which the treatment itself is routine and innocuous. A mere penicillin shot can cure a lot of potentially fatal infections or diseases. Just because a condition is serious doesn’t mean the treatment can’t be simple.
By the way, the reason I call an unwanted pregnancy an “emergency” situation is not because I think there is necessarily a health threat but because it’s so time-critical. The earlier the termination, the lower the risk to the woman.
[QUOTE=Miller]
In two years, she’ll be old enough to drive, but not old enough to vote. In four years, she’ll be old enough to vote, but not old enough to drink. Unless you consider that to be a double standard as well, I don’t see anything inconsistent with Dio thinking she should be treated like an adult in some respects, and a minor in others. It’s consistent, in general terms, with how we treat minors and young adults already.
[/QUOTE]
Did you miss the distinction drawn further down in the thread?
We grant responsibility in increasing stages. Driving, voting, drinking are judged to be increasing stages of responsbility. But abortion is a very serious matter, and having a brief discussion with police officers not a particularly serious matter. So it does not follow the model.
Dio’s subsequent clarification was, however, that the keystone for him is voluntariness. That is, he equally supports her autonomous decision to have an abortion AND, were it the case, her autonomous decision to talk with police unaccompanied. He is thus perfectly consistent between the two cases, and I acknowledged as much later on.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
By the way, the reason I call an unwanted pregnancy an “emergency” situation is not because I think there is necessarily a health threat but because it’s so time-critical. The earlier the termination, the lower the risk to the woman.
[/QUOTE]
I welcome correction on this point from medical professionals, but i do not believe that the medical profession would characterize an unwanted pregnancy as an “emergency” (absent some particular, specific reason to do so) nor do I believe the profession would call an ordinary abortion an “emergency medical procedure” (again, absent some particular, specific reason to do so).
[QUOTE=Bricker]
We grant responsibility in increasing stages. Driving, voting, drinking are judged to be increasing stages of responsbility. But abortion is a very serious matter, and having a brief discussion with police officers not a particularly serious matter. So it does not follow the model.
[/QUOTE]
Driving takes less responsibility than voting? How many people are killed in voting accidents every year?
I don’t think you can say that the level of responsibility inherent in any of these actions is an absolute. You think that abortion is a matter of far graver importance than shielding a minor from government intimidation. Someone else might feel the inverse to be true. This may not be wise, or well considered, or even logically defensible, but it’s not hypocritical. It’s simply assigning differing values of importance to these issues than you do.
And yes, I did see Dio’s clarification. I’m not trying to defend him. Under your original misconception of what Dio was trying to say, I still think you were inaccurate in seeing a double standard.
[QUOTE=Miller]
Driving takes less responsibility than voting? How many people are killed in voting accidents every year?
[/QUOTE]
Some would argue that the answer is about 600,000.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
Some would argue that the answer is about 600,000.
[/QUOTE]
I knew someone was going to go for the anti-Bush joke with that line. I never expected it to be you.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’d more likely than not agree with that. I’m still chewing it over a bit, and I’m not totally sure how I feel about it. That she should’ve been questioned seems like good sense, that she should’ve been questioned in such a manner… I’m not sure.
[/quote]
Yeah, I don’t doubt that there wan’t precident for looking into the situation—though, in my opinion, it seems like it may have been a slow day, but who knows.
The manner of questioning, at best, casts suspicion on agencies which they don’t need right now, at least. At worst, they violated someone’s rights.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
Alll good questions, and the infotainment style article I found certainly doesn’t do a very good job of answering 'em.
[/quote]
Unless the story blows up, which I doubt at this point, those details probably won’t be an issue and won’t be revealed. But, I felt they should be put out there as consideratiosn for anyone discussing the incident.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I’d definitely be more likely to come down on the side of the kid and her parents in such a situation… but I can also see some other possibilities. If, for instance, the kid was actually planning some violence, it’d probably be counter-productive to have the parents in there talkin gabout what a sweet angel their child is. Maybe in a situation like that it’s better to provide a child with counsel before questioning begins.
Then again, I don’t know the statutes in force for such a situation, so that’s just my beer n’ pretzels opinion.
[/quote]
True. I’m inclined to write of the girl’s actions as nothing more than the flakey antics of a teenager, but it’s possible that there was something more involved.
In any case, they should have, on record (the interview tape, preferably) made clear that she had the right to request a lawyer or the right to contact her parents, then if she refused, simply continued with the interview.
[QUOTE=FinnAgain]
I thought that, more likely than not, one of her friends narked on her.
[/QUOTE]
That’s a good bet.
[QUOTE=Miller]
I knew someone was going to go for the anti-Bush joke with that line. I never expected it to be you.
[/QUOTE]
Only Nixon could go to China.