City of Boston, repeat after me. (Language)
Send my regards to Wee Todd Ed, King of the Sofas.
Posted on 02/01/2007 3:16:22 AM PST by billorites
Intent is the difference in a lot of crimes. When people break the law, their intent is important. If they are shown to have intent, they will not be punished for thinking about putting up the signs, but rather for actually putting up the signs with the intent of provoking the police response. In that case, the intent is what makes the action criminal.
Sometimes I hit the record button on my VCR. Does that make me a "multimedia artist"?
Ahhh, that must be why the people of Boston reacted the way they did.
Thank you for that clarification. I'm enlightened now!
CA....
Seems kind of like hate crimes to me. How could you ever prove something like that?
Yes, but not necessarily a good one
>>“To do this kind of placement of devices the way it was, an individual had to know or should have that it was going to create the kind of panic it did,” Coakley said last night during a press conference. <<
I think the individuals only crime was to underestimate the stupidity of the people and government officials in his area.
After 911 we had the Seattle police, fire deparment and hazardous waste guys (in the funny suits) go to my building after we were all evacuated, because someone dropped excessive powdered sugar off their donut onto the carpet. Some moronic liberal thought it was anthrax. The equally moronic powers-that-be responded accordingly.
Personally, I would have just vacuumed it up.
Intent is the difference between manslaughter and murder. It's the difference between a clerical error and fraud. It's the difference between unauthorized entry and buglary. Courts consider intent every day, and consider it when arriving at appropriate punishment.
The thing about Hate Crimes legislation is that it deals with the motivation behind the intent, which is taking it a step further.
As an example, suppose I ran over somebody with my car. If it was an accident, I might be reckless or negligent or drunk or something. If I did it on purpose, I am guilty of homicide. If I did it because of the person's protected status as a minority, then I would be guilty of some additional hate crime.
thirty eight were planted before they got the attention of LEO. Makes the mayor and his enforcement agencies look like clowns. No wonder they overreated and the mayor is fuming. No way can he explain to his constiuents that 38 were planted before any action was taken. So as a politician, he knows he must turnaround his exposure as incompetent, and go after the cartoon network and blame them.
Do you think it was inevitable that eventually one would have provoked such a response?
This is this case if they called it in you would consider it intent, and if they didn't they should just be guilty of posting signs without a permit.
No you wouldn't laugh it off or even call the cops. You'd go ahead and eat it, because you're hungry, and it wouldn't look poisonous. Just as Sasha drank the tea.
Real IEDs look innocuous. You aren't supposed to notice them until they fill you with carpet tacks. Not like cheesy electronic ads perched in unlikely locations to command your attention.
"Do you think it was inevitable that eventually one would have provoked such a response?"
I've seen one forgotten backpack produce a similar repsonse. Moreover these guys were filming as they placed these signs in plain view around Boston streets the night before. One might expect atleast one LEO to see them in action to ask them what they were doing?
Now, I just saw a report on foxnews that Boston is claiming it cost the city 750k to get them removed. The installers should be asking the cartoon network for a pay raise since they probably placed them for a few measely bucks.
Hi there, Mumbles. I would think you'd be too busy today to be posting on FR!
I guess I don't watch enough TV...
If bombs are so easy to spot, how come IEDs are such a problem in Iraq?
Menino, Patrick, and Coakley are to blame for this. Turner (idiots that they are) should not pay a dime.
They could have just as easily just been left on a curb somewhere.
Nah, every competent terrorist knows it's best to plant the device under the curb. That's why US forces are wary of freshly repaired concrete. Only retards expect to perceive exposed wires and batteries and flashing lights.
Of course these things are easy to spot. What's the purpose of an oh-so-precious viral marketing campaign that nobody sees.
They were designed to provoke the exact response they provoked. They were placed with intent to provoke that response. Once this is demonstrated in court, the people responsible should be made to pay a hefty price.
I suspect the police are talking to everybody involved right now in separate rooms. The first one that says they were trying to provoke the police is going to get a Get Out Jail Free Card. The rest are going down.
Yeah, charge them with a violation of the sign ordinance and then execute them. That will show those Demicommies in Boston who is tough on terror!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.