*note to self* Tim's PLONK system may be enforced in an arbitrary and
capricious manner. :-)
> On Saturday, April 21, 2001, at 08:22 PM, Aimee Farr wrote:
>
> > Declan wrote:
> >
> >> Aimee,
> >> I don't know what you mean by intervention tactics.
> >
> > Did anybody have a "sit down" talk with Bell? Protective order? Contact
> > his
> > parents? Etc.-etc.... If not, were intervention tactics considered? Did
> > they have time/opportunity to do so?
>
> I agree with Declan. I have no idea what you mean by "intervention."
Being a reporter, Declan asked. But hell, never mind what I meant...
> Yeah, I know the psychobabble term. However, I know just how limited the
> reality is (and _should_ be, to anyone at all interested in liberty and
> constitutional rights)
> Fact is, nobody could have "intervened" with Bell. Not his parents, not
> me, not you, not the manager of the local REI, not anyone.
> People have constitutional rights and these rights are not abrogated by
> an "intervention."
> A person may only be held or confined against his will if due process is
> satisfied. This usually means at least a preliminary hearing, after the
> usual "initial period" has passed.
Ah. I'm going to intervene here ...and say that intervention tactics are
pretty far ranging, beginning with individual sit-downs, family contacts,
etc.-etc. However, institutionalization is in the range of options. Before
Tim says it, I didn't THINK about the inference.
> (BTW, I know whereof I speak. I choose not to provide details from my
> family, but suffice it to say that even situations FAR MORE SERIOUS than
> the Bell-Gordon tete-a-tete do not result in "interventions.")
Yes, I am also keenly aware of this.
> Bell made his own decisions. Had anyone "done an intervention," against
> his will, he would have been justified in killing them. This is the way
> things work on our society, rightly so.
Yes, he did make his own decisions. I wonder if he could have made different
ones so as to avoid the threat and necessity of prosecution (in the eyes of
LEA) ...i.e. if he was a candidate for intervention, if this was considered,
and the nature of their threat-assessment for Mr. Bell.
While I anticipate identity protection legislation to protect agents,
"looking up your neighbor" is the new hoola-hoop. If somebody has an honest
belief they are being "spied on," they are going to try to find out what's
up. LEA should have special protocol to deal with these people, because they
grow in number. "Unmasking agents" is a hobby for some people, a defense
measure for others. I would think great consideration is given to
intervention tactics, considering that some people can be provoked to
"agitated states" by government surveillance, etc., -- and out of
consideration for the agents, and others, in the possible line of fire. LEA
has a bad rep for being prosecution/apprehension-oriented v.
protection-oriented, so I was curious as to their decision-process in this
matter. This is a common topic in the private protection sector.
~Aimee
