Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hannukah harry
some one who thinks "hmm... i want to blow up this building" but doesn't know how or have the means is no danger.
|
Wow, just wow.
What is this person's next step? To collect the means to act on his intent. Then people die. This person is a danger regardless of what stage of the game he is in. If you can catch one of these guys in the planning stage rather then then after the act itself, you can save countless lives.
BTW, intent is a crime, I doubt I have to list different crimes where this is applicable.
Intent is the years of planning before 9/11.
Intent is the thought in somebody's mind that maybe we should fill a raft with explosives and float it next to a naval warship.
Intent is some dumb kid, mad at the gov't, thinking about how he can blow up a federal building.
Intent is just the first stage in a deadly and destructive act.
The funny thing is how this argument is used.
Take Columbine. There was a lot of intent by two kids that you wouldn't think would have the means to carry out such an act. Guess what? They took that intent, formulated a plan and carried it out.
Now, who is in trouble?
The police for not acting on the known intent.
This is a double-standard argument. You (collective) criticize for not "protecting you" when there are clues to the intent. Then you criticize for acting progressively and going after people that have the intent.
Yes, intent is dangerous. People die when you think otherwise and the case history is on my side for this argument.