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."
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.
(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.")
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.
--Tim May
