Originally Posted by Baraka_Guru

Wow, this is a huge leap. I think we should take into consideration other factors, such as the individual circumstances, the actions and judgement of the investigators, and the fact that we don't know the outcome of the man's trial.

To jump to a conclusion that there is a special class in the United States based on what you've presented here is almost completely unconvincing. You've presented circumstantial evidence, and little else...no further arguments, observations, or criticisms. Until you do, I don't see any prospects for a valuable discussion of your idea of a privileged class. What else can you add to this to make it happen?

I would like to point out, however, that it would be interesting (and maybe frightening) to know what would happen to a Muslim man if the same thing happened to him.

But to answer your question, I think that those held to the responsibility to uphold and/or interpret the laws should be held to the responsibility to abide by them as well. But where it gets difficult is when you consider intent and motive, especially in the context of this judge. She carries a gun because she gets death threats. What do you think a judge heading to an attorneys' conference wanted to do with a gun on a plane? Hijack it? Let's be realistic here. All this judge probably avoided was a $1,000 fine for having a legally owned gun in an airport. Big deal. It appeared to be a mistake on her part. At least, that's what the investigators determined.

As far as the man is concerned, I hope he gets a fair trial. But I'm not convinced that he is being unfairly treated by virtue of his going to court. As I said, each of these cases have their own circumstances.

If you can present more evidence or arguments for this special class treatment you mention, I'd be interested to see it.