• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Umbrella's forbidden, machete's allowed at Times Square ball drop - Security Theater

jbg

Active Member
Accused Islamic radical in machete attack went after NYPD as 'enemy of the state:' sources

This is the ultimate in security theater. The Times Square ball drop was held on a rainy New Year's Eve. No umbrellas mind you; they are an attack weapon, Apparently, machetes are just fine. </sarcasm>

Seriously, though, these theatrical regulations are obeyed by the law-abiding. Does one really expect a criminal to take them seriously. This is the same with building-lobby security, airport security and Covid regulations. Only the law-abiding obey.

The school shooting in Uvalde, Texas highlight a recurring problem; lots of security theater, little security. Uvalde and other schools have all the right security apparatus; single, usually closed entrance, and SWAT drills to practice handling an active shooter. As we now learn, see , ‘Wrong decision, period’: Top Texas cop admits cops botched Uvalde school response and Texas Gov. Abbott ‘misled,’ ‘livid’ about cops’ delayed response to school shooting (link) the police didn't exactly rush in. Understandable, perhaps; they didn't plan on dying. We make entering schools by law-abiding people an audition for the gong show, yet Salvador Ramos gets a clean shot at lots of people, twenty-one of whom are now dead.

Round and round and round we go. Back in 2016 I posted on the issue of "security theater." Wyckoff Police Chief Benjamin Fox takes leave after profiling email (excerpt):

Police Officer Benjamin said:
My major concern is that all of this misguided complaining about police officers will cause an officer to react slower to something you might perceive as a threat. That delay could be deadly. Continue to do your job relying on your training, instincts and knowledge: A common thread in the recent national incidents are persons who resist the police. That resistance then creates your counter reaction. We don't run from fights. This department has a history of being respected by the public. Each of you contribute to that daily. Continue to be fair with people and treat them with respect. If someone resists your authorized demands, use your counter reaction as the law allows and you have my 100 support should others complain. If you have done your job correctly, they don't want to get me on the other end of the phone. Above all, do what you have to do and that which the law allows you to do to remain safe.
Back in 2015 I went to drop a cell phone off for my son at his high school. He had called and I said I would leave it at the principal's office. I was greeted at the front door by a friendly and pleasant security guard. I had to leave it with him. We got to talking. I pointed out that back in the day I visited my high school alma mater and went right to teachers' offices, and to my old club offices. Now that would be impossible. He pointed out that there used to be all kinds of entrances and exits that people could use. Now every entrance is a cluster and a delay, all because of the one-off incident in Sandy Hook. We went centuries before Sandy Hook without such rules; are there suddenly hundreds of monsters out there that would kill children? Remember most such tragedies, such as Columbine, involve current students, not outsiders.

Another situation involved a disabled St. Jude Patient, see Disabled St. Jude patient sues airport and TSA after bloody scuffle with Airport Police, who was apparently badly mistreated by the TSA in Tennessee. I have thought long and hard about these issues and started several threads over the last year on this subject. Specifically I wonder why sophisticated, intelligent and busy people, whose time is valuable, don't object to the TSA gelling up the air travel system, with little gain as to stopping terrorism. People meekly take off their shoes, since one person approximately fifteen years ago, The Shoe Bomber's World, tried to blow up a plane with a bomb hidden in his sneaker. Presumably a similar response to the December 25, 2009 Underwear bomber attack would have imposed some difficulties so nothing similar was done to require people to fully disrobe at airports.

Again, why is this tolerated?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
The knife wasn't really a machete.
It's a kukri, which is typically shorter,
& easy to conceal.
But leave it to cops & the media to
describe something wrongly in a
way designed to seem more evil.

Ah, the old days.....
I used to be able to carry a concealed
handgun into court...with permission of
the cops. Those days are long gone.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
How many times will we have to endure the same idiotic argument; that because criminals will break laws, we should eliminate the laws?
 

We Never Know

No Slack
How many times will we have to endure the same idiotic argument; that because criminals will break laws, we should eliminate the laws?

About as long as......
How many times will we have to endure the same idiotic argument; making new laws will thwart criminals who don't abide by laws.
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
How many times will we have to endure the same idiotic argument; that because criminals will break laws, we should eliminate the laws?
We keep making more dumb laws that change nothing. How many times should we keep doing the same stuff before we realize it's insane?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
About as long as......
How many times will we have to endure the same idiotic argument; making new laws will thwart criminals who don't abide by laws.
That argument actually makes a lot of sense, as it defines the criminals, as criminals, and it also makes them easy to spot. As they will be the only ones breaking the law.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
We keep making more dumb laws that change nothing. How many times should we keep doing the same stuff before we realize it's insane?
So, you're assuming that if a law doesn't stop everyone, it's not stopping anyone, and is therefor ineffective and useless. Is that your reasoning, here?
 

Wildswanderer

Veteran Member
So, you're assuming that if a law doesn't stop everyone, it's not stopping anyone, and is therefor ineffective and useless. Is that your reasoning, here?
Are you assuming making a rule about no weapons is going to stop a person who wants to kill people?
Sure that's logical!
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
That argument actually makes a lot of sense, as it defines the criminals, as criminals, and it also makes them easy to spot. As they will be the only ones breaking the law.
The post you responded to assumes that criminals will break the laws regardless if they are there or not. That makes some unfounded assumptions about criminals, number one being that they do not care about getting caught. Most of them do care. That is why laws work. The youth in the OP had to know that he would get caught. He is the rare psychopath that is very hard to defend against. Laws are aimed at the majority of potential lawbreakers. They can't be aimed at all potential ones.
 

We Never Know

No Slack
We keep making more dumb laws that change nothing. How many times should we keep doing the same stuff before we realize it's insane?

IMO we need stronger punishments for those who break the law. And a few laws could use tougher restrictions. For example...if Bill knowingly sells felon Bob a gun off record/under the table, Bill should be charged with selling a felon a weapon. If Bob commits any crimes with said weapon, Bill should be implicated in those crimes as well.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
IMO we need stronger punishments for those who break the law. And a few laws could use tougher restrictions. For example...if Bill knowingly sells felon Bob a gun off record/under the table, Bill should be charged with selling a felon a weapon. If Bob commits any crimes with said weapon, Bill should be implicated in those crimes as well.
Stronger laws would not have stopped this most recent attack. There are going to be psychopaths that know that they will be caught and do not care.

And your example may already be illegal.
 

jbg

Active Member
How many times will we have to endure the same idiotic argument; that because criminals will break laws, we should eliminate the laws?
How many times will we have to endure laws that make no sense? It's sort of like lowering the BAC allowed from 0.08% to 0.05% when someone with a 3.5% creates carnage. Or lowering the speed limit from 50 to 40 where some crazed motorist smashes into somebody or something going 110 mph. Or expecting gun control to do much to stop Uvalde-type massacres.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
How many times will we have to endure laws that make no sense? It's sort of like lowering the BAC allowed from 0.08% to 0.05% when someone with a 3.5% creates carnage. Or lowering the speed limit from 50 to 40 where some crazed motorist smashes into somebody or something going 110 mph. Or expecting gun control to do much to stop Uvalde-type massacres.
Do you have examples of such a reaction? You may be using a strawman argument.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Are you assuming making a rule about no weapons is going to stop a person who wants to kill people?
Sure that's logical!
Laws stop people from killing other people all the time, every day. People refrain from doing things they might want to do all the time. And the rule of law is one of the main reasons for it. Are you really so blinded by this BS "tantrum" ideology that you can't even acknowledge something that obvious?
 

PureX

Veteran Member
How many times will we have to endure laws that make no sense? It's sort of like lowering the BAC allowed from 0.08% to 0.05% when someone with a 3.5% creates carnage. Or lowering the speed limit from 50 to 40 where some crazed motorist smashes into somebody or something going 110 mph. Or expecting gun control to do much to stop Uvalde-type massacres.
Perhaps if you stopped focusing so singularly on the one exceptional law-breaker you'd appreciate all those potential law-breakers that the law kept in check.
 
Top