Per your last paragraph of the post to which I'm responding:
Quote, "Of course David could have been picked up any time had not the gung ho, wanabe kick assers, & lets make a name for ourself freaks that hide their sadistic nature behind a badge, who were itching for a fire fight. Indeed they set it up to where it was bound to happen."
I, personally, am not so ready to condemn the individuals for the now infamous act which is not to suggest that they aren't responsible for their actions, but am more inclined to agree with the last sentence of the quote, "Indeed they set it up to where it was bound to happen" based on an observation relating to the effects of "group-think", or the mob affect.
To illustrate, I've noted the difference between an individual's thinking towards another, and how suddenly empowered an individual will feel to act when joined with other individuals who think in similar terms. Certainly, this situation has played itself out in many areas of human interaction where an assault has deadly results, or even aggravating consequences.
Had we seen more of a reluctance on the part of those in charge of the "Waco Incident" to engage in a fire-fight, we might have seen a totally different outcome. So maybe, it isn't a case of an individuals personality with regard the desire to engage in a battle type situation, but more of a lack of competent leadership.
I do think, though, that the government should come clean on this situation and all others that may arise in the future, or the feelings of those who mistrust the government will only be compounded.
As an aside, even now with more of the actual details coming to light regarding the incident, it doesn't appear that such things matter on the whole when it comes to electing our leaders on regular intervals. Otherwise, why is it that Clinton managed to serve two terms? (I didn't vote for the SOB either time, btw).
It seems to me that those who regularly pound the table with regard to constitutional freedoms being consistently undermined doesn't seem to matter to the voting majority. Why not?
I agree with the fellow who thinks that the constitution is a piece of paper which is subject to evolution. Our society is certainly much more complex and complicated than it was when it was drawn up and agreed to. Hence, it seems perfectly logical to me that so should the institutional ideas evolve on which our country was founded. Flintlocks evolved didn't they? |
