- #121
russ_watters
Mentor
- 23,734
- 11,177
I'd really like to hear some elaboration on that too, because I didn't think we were all that far apart and I don't see how the current swing of the political pendulum could possibly equate to "truth".nsaspook said:
Most of us, including you, seem to agree that problem #1 is the PC, zero-tolerance, no responsibility culture that caused the school administrators to act. Beyond that, the only thing I see unique about this case is the fact that the student is Muslim and therefore the media and POTUS (based on the political pendulum's swing) care to make that an issue, when there otherwise appears to be no basis to. There are a number of other cases that have been similar (cited already) that haven't piqued quite as much interest because they lack that specific element. So it seems to me that beyond the school's poorly executed zero tolerance policy (which is typical today and therefore not all that newsworthy), we have a perfect storm of PC list crossfire:
Defend List:
Muslims
Attack List:
Texans
Police
Right: so by the outcome, we can say that the police, in Texas appear to have acted properly. But they can be attacked anyway because they're on that list.
Not quite on topic:
If you are guilty of something, "keep your mouth shut" is solid advice because there are pretty much only good things that can come from being silent and only bad things that can come from opening-up. But when you haven't done anything wrong, there are potential goods and bads that can come from not talking. That's why it's a catch-22 and why IMO the advice to say nothing is overly simplistic. Indeed, some questions or searches are themselves illegal to refuse.
The gamble is that:
1. If you answer the questions honestly and openly (cooperatively), you might get on their good side, but if they hear something they don't like, they might hold you to investigate further.
2. If you are silent/evasive, they may not have any evidence with which to hold you, but they also might be suspicious of your attitude, which can cause deeper investigation.
Me, personally, I'd rather get in trouble for honesty than for evasiveness because honesty is always defensible in and of itself while evasiveness is always not defensible in and of itself (by that, I mean separate from the crime or lack thereof). Ie:
1. I didn't do anything wrong and was open and honest.
2. I didn't do anything wrong...except be evasive/mute.
In any particular instance it is a coin flip which might work better, but with evasiveness there is always an open question the police want answered and therefore no inherent end point to the investigation.
And another somewhat tangential issue...old, now:
No, that's not what "just following orders" is about, unless you actually live in Nazi Germany and even then it wouldn't work as a defense for breaking a law. As the others said, the requirement is that you follow the law, with the assumption being that the law follows the morality. If people were entitled to follow their religious beliefs instead of the law, the oaths of office people take would be meaningless and laws would be unenforceable. That was an easy case for the courts and the outcome was predictable: indeed, I found it breathtaking that her lawyer would even attempt to use the argument that she was entitled to follow her religious beliefs (thereby acknowledging she didn't respect the authority of the law or courts).DEvans said:
Hit the deck!