TimesUnion - Message proves unsettling



Please read the entire article before responding.

Questions for debate:

1) At what point does "violent revolution" become inevitable?

2) Does this story demonstrate police harrassment?

1) At what point does "violent revolution" become inevitable?

Given Kennedy's quote, I gather that's the same as asking at what point peaceful revolution becomes impossible. Tough question to answer. I suppose another way of asking it would be, If peaceful revolution were possible on this subject (fathers' rights), how would it come about? Can anyone visualize it happening at this stage of the game?

2) Does this story demonstrate police harrassment?

Any time someone posts a message that can reasonably be perceived as a threat, it's highly likely that something could come of it. I'm willing to give the police the benefit of the doubt and say they were acting out of an abundance of caution, rather than a deliberate attempt to harass this man.

The first question for debate is much too big for me. I leave it to others.

On the second question, although I find Dickinson's statement reprehensible (despite the fact that he and I might find much common ground on the issue of father's rights), I see no reason why he should have been subjected to police investigation. This sounds like a case of borderline police harrassment to me.

In general, the deadly powers of law enforcement need to be restricted very strongly in order to have a free society.

Not at all, it demonstrates that a public citizen will be challenged when he sends threatening e-mails to others. The police in no way were in the wrong on this. When he talks about armed revolt, the police would've been stupid to show up when this guy most likely would've been awake. The thread title makes it sound it was over an innocuous e-mail, which isn't an accurate depiction IMHO as it alludes to what will happen to those who make this guy and others like him upset.

Except...an officer did show up when he was awake (on the following day), and concluded that it was "absurd" (the officer's word) that he should even have had to investigate at all.

It would have been one thing if Dickinson had sent this email to a judge who works on these cases, or made it an open letter to the editor or something. But he circulated it specifically to legislators. It contained no specific threat to anyone.

Like I said above, the police's reaction may have been understandable, but overzealous. So while I'm not accusing them of harassment, I also say it wasn't appropriate. Part of living in a free country is accepting that some uncomfortable things have to be said from time to time. Is it a threat when advocates of greater social spending predict that crime will go up as a result of poor people acting out of desperation? I don't see how this is different.

That may very well be, but if you have a problem with your banker, and other people know of that problem, and you send a missive about bankers showing up dead and people taking things into their own hands, then it cannot be reasonably argued that you had no target in mind. Likewise with this situation. State legislators don't get along with judges in county politics or run together in similar circles such as the golf club? This guy knew what he was doing, he just tried to do it in a way that he could have some plausible denial. Yes, you must live with uncomfortable things being said, but you never have to live with veiled threats.

On another account, the title of the debate is misleading. Since when does 11: 22 p.m. or 10:00 a.m. constitue the "wee hours" of the morning? 11:22 is late, but not unreasonable as say......2 a.m.

blackstone-do check out my topic on men's rights in the men's section of the gende debate. The post deals with "shared parenting" laws and how in many circumstances, men are cheated. Though in this case, allow me to say that I can see why.

It would be hard to imagine a quote from someone like John Kennedy that would relate to such a situation. Bankers simply do not have the kind of arbitrary power over people's lives that governments do. Government is all about the use of force, and so it's only natural to expect that some types of exertion of force would be met with a forceful reply. And saying so doesn't mean you yourself are threatening or condoning such a thing.

It just seems to me that if the police really thought he had done something illegal, they would have had a charge of some kind drawn up against him. If they were paying him a visit at 10 or 11 pm, one would think they'd have been showing up to arrest him. Otherwise, why not just wait till the next day?


OK, so if someone abducts your child and prevents you from being able to see her, you're telling me that thoughts of forceful action would never make their way into your mind?

And as a citizen, that man had a right to say that he disagrees. But to use the quote as he did, in such a threatening manner, is absolutely the wrong way to go about things. Yes, government does use force, but ours is elected and as being such, is empowered by the people to do certain things. Run against the incumbents or speak out, but by all means, don't threaten people in certain positions. And what, if anything, has the government done to this man to justify threats in the first place?



I would disagree with this as it was clearly showing what would happen if people like him weren't placated. The fact that the homicidal killer went off his rocker was completley lost on this guy.



So if you call the police and want something investigated, do you want them to take their sweet time on it? 11 p.m. is not the "wee hours of the morning." Nor is 10 a.m.




Thoughts of forceful action are one thing. Threatening a judge, and making it known outside of your mind, is quite another matter. The judge didn't abduct anyone. Sorry, but that's departing from the road that this topic is on. But if we want to talk about kidnapping, we could discuss how a prominent "men's rights" organization leader is in jail for kidnapping his own son and taking him to the Dominican Republic.

And when such methods of "peaceful revolution" prove ineffective at securing basic rights, what becomes inevitable, as per Mr. Kennedy? Yes, government is empowered by the people to do certain things, but there are also certain things that no government can be legitimately empowered to do, either by the "people" or by anyone else.


I don't accept the premise of your question. His quoting of Kennedy was no more threatening than Kennedy himself was when he first said it. Both were giving warnings.


Unless someone was in imminent danger (which I don't think anyone was seriously arguing), then waiting till a civilized hour the next day is not taking their "sweet time".


And he didn't threaten anyone, least of all any specific person. What he did do is make it clear that when oppression goes too far, things start to happen. That's just a fact of life.