|Quoting RIX" class="quote" target="_blank">RIX (Reply 80):|
I'm saying that since there also can be reasonable suspicion (don't you agree there can be one?), not based on prejudice (don't you agree there can be such one too?), a person reporting something based on this suspicion doesn't have to be punished if he is wrong in any case (that is, not deliberately sabotaging something, ...), just because he reported it.
Reasonable to whom? You realize that cops shoot people and get away with it all the time because the standard for a cop shooting someone is merely that they must have had a reasonable belief TO
THEM at that time that the other party presented a threat to life or of great bodily harm to themselves or others. See the key thing here? In most torts, the standard under which the person accused of committing the tort would be found responsible is whether their actions were reasonable to an ordinary person. But in an officer shooting, it only requires that the officer him/herself reasonably believed they were in danger. I mean, how does one even convict an officer in that case? He or she can ALWAYS claim "But *I* reasonably, really did believe my life was in danger!"
So, again: Under your theory, to whom must the suspicion be reasonable in order for it to be ok with you? The reporting party might say: "But I was in WTC 1 on 9/11 and I saw all those Muslim kill my friends---my suspicion of them is perfectly reasonable". Then what? Or "I speak Arabic and I swear they said "bomb!" and I was suspicious". The suspected "bomber" would claim "But I never said 'bomb'!" and the cops say "Sure, that's exactly what you would claim!". Now it's he said/she said.
This is why my argument re: the 2 passengers at MDW
who were prevented from boarding until they were questioned was simply that the agent only needed to ask the reporting party 2 questions: 1) What language were they speaking and if the party knew what language they were speaking, 2) What were they saying, EXACTLY, that made you suspicious? But the agent NEVER questioned the reporting party (nor did whoever relaying the reporting party's suspicions to the agent).
See what I mean? If the reporting party cannot provide SOMETHING to show WHY it's suspicious, then they need to be told to sit down and shut up OR
given a full refund and left behind.
I will say this: I do agree that reporting party's whose reports are found to be false should only be arrested/fined/jailed if their report was knowingly false or made based on prejudice. Not every report found to be false should be punished--but under the conditions I've outlined above, they would at least have actual objective evidence to support their claim. "Speaking that goofy language--I don't know what it is" would NEVER be sufficient.
|Quoting YTZ (Reply 83):|
Like I said earlier, I suggested that the whole plane should have been deboarded and swept. Why would you want to continue traveling on a plane that's supposedly had a threat, without it being swept?
says he trusts the authorities to figure it out after someone has made their claim of suspicious activity. That makes total sense, right?