It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by something wicked
Is there a reason you are selectively ignoring the full quote from the Sheriff of -
“We want people to call us if the guy down the street says he hates the government, hates the mayor and he’s gonna shoot him,”
So, if someone says they are going to shoot someone then it's not something to be even mildly concerned about? Strange thinking....
The thing is, it's always been the law to report someone if they've confided in someone that they're going to commit a premeditated murder or assault with a deadly weapon, so why is the sheriff acting like this is something new he just thought of and is getting funding for this original idea?
The problem is that this soon to be murderer is ANTI-GOVERNMENT.
Just like the parents who kidnapped their kids recently and fled to Cuba. The keyword the media was using was ANTI-GOVERNMENT.
edit on 3-5-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)edit on 3-5-2013 by Afterthought because: (no reason given)
Also, after troubled people are identified by Bradshaw’s teams, then what? Who will pay for their care? The state? Medicaid? The county? The Palm Beach County Public Defender has a good program to ensure qualified people apply for the Social Security and Medicaid benefits they may need, she said. Some high-level conversations have started, but more are needed, Berner added.
Originally posted by eXia7
Also, after troubled people are identified by Bradshaw’s teams, then what? Who will pay for their care? The state? Medicaid? The county? The Palm Beach County Public Defender has a good program to ensure qualified people apply for the Social Security and Medicaid benefits they may need, she said. Some high-level conversations have started, but more are needed, Berner added.
I would also like to touch on this statement also, it talks about how would we care for those deemed to be mentally ill, or a "threat" as the rest of the article implies. So if this is a faulty program, essentially the tax payers would be paying for their own neighbors to spy on them.. a self funded community spy agency.. wake up America!
Not to mention it would saddle the state with extra expenses to house these people, plus give them benefits?edit on 5/3/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by eXia7
Also, after troubled people are identified by Bradshaw’s teams, then what? Who will pay for their care? The state? Medicaid? The county? The Palm Beach County Public Defender has a good program to ensure qualified people apply for the Social Security and Medicaid benefits they may need, she said. Some high-level conversations have started, but more are needed, Berner added.
I would also like to touch on this statement also, it talks about how would we care for those deemed to be mentally ill, or a "threat" as the rest of the article implies. So if this is a faulty program, essentially the tax payers would be paying for their own neighbors to spy on them.. a self funded community spy agency.. wake up America!
Not to mention it would saddle the state with extra expenses to house these people, plus give them benefits?edit on 5/3/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
So what do you think should happen if someone really is mentally ill and may or may not be a threat to themselves or others? Seriously, you've asked the question, what is your opinion?
Originally posted by eXia7
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by eXia7
Also, after troubled people are identified by Bradshaw’s teams, then what? Who will pay for their care? The state? Medicaid? The county? The Palm Beach County Public Defender has a good program to ensure qualified people apply for the Social Security and Medicaid benefits they may need, she said. Some high-level conversations have started, but more are needed, Berner added.
I would also like to touch on this statement also, it talks about how would we care for those deemed to be mentally ill, or a "threat" as the rest of the article implies. So if this is a faulty program, essentially the tax payers would be paying for their own neighbors to spy on them.. a self funded community spy agency.. wake up America!
Not to mention it would saddle the state with extra expenses to house these people, plus give them benefits?edit on 5/3/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
So what do you think should happen if someone really is mentally ill and may or may not be a threat to themselves or others? Seriously, you've asked the question, what is your opinion?
Like I said before, if they are indeed a real threat, then of course handle it, there are already programs available to house and care for these people. My fear is, that they will use this as an expansion of their budget to continue to force control. This could become the model of the US, your neighbor could literally lie about you, and get you arrested. How you can not see this as dangerous, I do not know.
All it would take is incentive, people like to be do-gooders, and collect their consolation prize for being a good obedient servant.
What I wonder is, what are the potential abuse factors involved with this.. because there really needs to be hard evidence on people before you start labeling them crazy.edit on 5/3/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by eXia7
Originally posted by something wicked
Originally posted by eXia7
Also, after troubled people are identified by Bradshaw’s teams, then what? Who will pay for their care? The state? Medicaid? The county? The Palm Beach County Public Defender has a good program to ensure qualified people apply for the Social Security and Medicaid benefits they may need, she said. Some high-level conversations have started, but more are needed, Berner added.
I would also like to touch on this statement also, it talks about how would we care for those deemed to be mentally ill, or a "threat" as the rest of the article implies. So if this is a faulty program, essentially the tax payers would be paying for their own neighbors to spy on them.. a self funded community spy agency.. wake up America!
Not to mention it would saddle the state with extra expenses to house these people, plus give them benefits?edit on 5/3/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
So what do you think should happen if someone really is mentally ill and may or may not be a threat to themselves or others? Seriously, you've asked the question, what is your opinion?
Like I said before, if they are indeed a real threat, then of course handle it, there are already programs available to house and care for these people. My fear is, that they will use this as an expansion of their budget to continue to force control. This could become the model of the US, your neighbor could literally lie about you, and get you arrested. How you can not see this as dangerous, I do not know.
All it would take is incentive, people like to be do-gooders, and collect their consolation prize for being a good obedient servant.
What I wonder is, what are the potential abuse factors involved with this.. because there really needs to be hard evidence on people before you start labeling them crazy.edit on 5/3/2013 by eXia7 because: (no reason given)
You are assuming your neighbour lying about you by saying that you said you hate the government will get you arrested, that is a leap from the actual information in your op, but is I guess intended to stir up further anti government sentiment - isn't it?
Originally posted by eXia7
Originally posted by eXia7
You are assuming your neighbour lying about you by saying that you said you hate the government will get you arrested, that is a leap from the actual information in your op, but is I guess intended to stir up further anti government sentiment - isn't it?
There is no proof that this will or will not happen, as this is a brand new system. I was bringing up the possibilities of abuse, as there is no evidence.. I use a hypothetical situation.
I'm not trying to stir up anti-government sentiment, I'm bringing up discussion on the encroaching police state, and erosion of freedom.
Again, you are free to allow government to intrude more and more on your private life, as I'm free to stand against it. I feel you're fishing for more than what I presented.
Originally posted by GrantedBail
reply to post by eXia7
Oh for sure. The article indicated it could be a model for the rest of the country. Your OP was great. Hope I didn't give you the wrong impression.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by something wicked
I believe the main point here being debated is that the sheriff is even mentioning that he's particularly interested in hearing about those who hate the government. Why would he specify this? Isn't it his job to only be concerned about who's a danger to citizens regardless of how they feel about the government?
Serve and protect, right?
Last I heard, sheriffs are public servants, but it sounds like this sheriff is serving the government's interests more so than the people.
Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by eXia7
One "hates" the government, so one is therefore ordered by the court into court approved "counseling" (for which one must pay) to remedy these "bad" thoughts.
Sounds like 1984's conversion process. Thought reformation as approved by the state.
BS.
Originally posted by Liquesence
reply to post by eXia7
One "hates" the government, so one is therefore ordered by the court into court approved "counseling" (for which one must pay) to remedy these "bad" thoughts.
Sounds like 1984's conversion process. Thought reformation as approved by the state.
BS.
Originally posted by Afterthought
reply to post by something wicked
I'm not sure and I admit that I'd have to go back and read it again, but I was assuming that he meant government as in all branches and offices.
Back to your example, I'd certainly report him. To me, it doesn't matter who someone wants to kill, it's the fact that they're thinking about it and whether or not they have the means and opportunity would communicate to me how much time their victim had. A sheriff always has a weapon and should know better than to say he's going to kill someone. I'd certainly consider him a loose canon who needed to be reported right away. Even if he's not serious, he might be take his frustrations out on the next person who ticks him off.
Originally posted by sad_eyed_lady
reply to post by GrantedBail
That is because you are a decent person. Some people enjoy revenge and blow little stuff way out of proportion.
You don't even have to say a word to some people, just a funny facial expression interpreted as a put-down will do.