I have always believed that the top echelon of our government are always under the scrutiny of people charged with protecting them. POTUS always has a visible cadre of men in black around him whenever he is out in public. Certainly all members of his cabinet, from the VP on down are shadowed also, yes? I would think that the Justices of the Supreme Court are right up there in the power structure of our government and, that said, why do I read of the assault/mugging of Justice David Souter, last week? He was jogging, apparently alone, when he was attacked. I cannot fathom this. Do the powerful have an option as to their personal protection? Can they just wave off the bodyguards with a whim? What lapse let this happen?
Here’s an article about SCOTUS security.
Hmm. I would have thought they would be protected the US Marshals Service as opposed to the SC Police. Wudda ya know.
I do not want to live in your country.
I like that I live where prominent members of society can walk around with no protection perfectly safely, with almost no risk to themselves at all.
You better stay away from Sweden too.
They sometimes are.
The recent flap with Scalia’s ordering reporters’ tapes of a speech confiscated and destroyed was done through marshals.
A perfect opportunity for unsolicited and unwarranted America-bashing, huh?
Will this shit ever stop?
Thanks,
ELMWOOD, I was holding my tongue on that response. Something obscene with a kangaroo involved was rolling around in my thoughts. :rolleyes:
GuanoLad writes:
> I like that I live where prominent members of society can walk around with no
> protection perfectly safely, with almost no risk to themselves at all.
Except for murder (where the U.S. clearly does have a higher rate), the U.S. is not that much different in crime rates from the other English-speaking countries. What the U.S. is higher in is paranoia about crime. There really is no particular reason to guard a Supreme Court justice any more than there is to guard the equivalent sort of judge in Australia or any other English-speaking countries. The fact that so much more is spent on protection for holders of high offices in the U.S. doesn’t mean that they are really in any greater danger. (I’m limiting myself to English-speaking countries because that’s where most SDMB members come from.)
I’m sorry about the perceived America-bashing. But to express such a high level of surprise that an Official who was walking around without 24hour protection was being foolish… Well, it is so alien a sentiment to me that I couldn’t stop myself from commenting.
I’m sure John Newman would have been surprised also. Had he been alive of course.
Depends on where you are, really. I see my state officials walking down Front street frequently. Not much perceived threat here. And if I went to Augusta (my state capital), I’d see more of 'em.
Interesting part about an attack on Justice Byron White:
Strange they would mention his college career but not that he once led the NFL in rushing with the Detroit lions. Sort of like saying “Emmitt Smith, who once set a new record for rushing at the University of Florida…”
But when during his pro career did he get a chance to be “hit harder than that in Utah”, which I think is why they mentioned his college football history - to put the “hit in Utah” comment in context?
It’s hard to find parking as it is. Stay there. Besides, ask Olof Palme if walking around the streets is safe in Sweden.
From the “completely impartial” BBC:
*But despite, or because, of [gun ownership in America], violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, even as British violence has been rising. By 1995 English rates of violent crime were already far higher than America’s for every major violent crime except murder and rape.
You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York. Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them. They help keep the peace. A study found American burglars fear armed home-owners more than the police. As a result burglaries are much rarer and only 13% occur when people are at home, in contrast to 53% in England.*
…and this from the same article:
*When guns were available in England they were seldom used in crime. A government study for 1890-1892 found an average of one handgun homicide a year in a population of 30 million. But murder rates for both countries are now changing. In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and by last year it was 3.5 times. With American rates described as “in startling free-fall” and British rates as of October 2002 the highest for 100 years the two are on a path to converge. *
So even in murder, the US is falling while others are increasing or holding steady. The OP is the perfect example of something happening to someone famous. Tens of thousands of people around the globe were mugged yesterday, we just didn’t hear about it because they’re not on the SCOTUS or in John Howard’s government.
Yeah, he was definitely talking about his college career in the quote, but it still looks a little odd somehow. I think I might have written it "White, who had been a star tailback at the University of Colorado prior to playing for the Detroit Lions, finished his speech, quipping, “I’ve been hit harder than that before in Utah.” Maybe it’s more cumbersome my way; IANAReporter.
I want to make it clear that when I wrote:
> Except for murder (where the U.S. clearly does have a higher rate), the U.S. is
> not that much different in crime rates from the other English-speaking
> countries. What the U.S. is higher in is paranoia about crime. There really is no
> particular reason to guard a Supreme Court justice any more than there is to
> guard the equivalent sort of judge in Australia or any other English-speaking
> countries. The fact that so much more is spent on protection for holders of high
> offices in the U.S. doesn’t mean that they are really in any greater danger. (I’m
> limiting myself to English-speaking countries because that’s where most SDMB
> members come from.)
I was not accusing GuanoLad of America-bashing, which some other people were accusing him of. I am not remotely interested in debating whether the U.S. or Australia or any other country is the “better” country. In general, I hate Great Debates and I find I regret it every time I post there.
My point was that the crime rates in the U.S. are not much different in any crime except murder (and, to a lesser degree, rape) from those in other English-speaking countries. Some rates are higher here and some are lower. The differences have changed over time, in any case. There really aren’t big differences except in murder and maybe rape.
The real difference is perception of crime. People in the U.S. tend to be more conscious of crime, even when it’s actually a lower rate than other places. There have been a number of cases where there has been a public outcry about certain sorts of crimes when there was no increase in the rates. I do not intend this statement as being either praise or commendation for either the U.S. or other countries. It simply a note of the trends.