Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (128944)	8/1/2005 2:33:06 AM
From: Neeka	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 793846

I think you must have meant couldn't care less? -g- The only real value to having cameras everywhere in public is to identify killers like the terrorists in London. Killers are terrorists.....period. This is how all murders should be viewed. Murder in any form should be called acts of terrorism, and the laws should be specifically tougher to reflect that reality imo. Why is there more of an effort, through police action and governmental authority, to capture "terrorists" than there is for someone who murders his boss? These 7 were rounded up in a week. Petty theft isn't as important as murder, so there should be branches of authority assigned to handle them just as there are branches of authority to handle cold blooded murderers such as SWAT teams. In reality, there are too many petty crimes and not enough people available to enforce the law. The ones who are charged with handling cases such as the one you mentioned become reticent for all of the obvious reasons. There should be zero tolerance for murderers and potential murderers. The Brits did it right.......they "got the bastards"