Lima, Ohio SWAT Team's Web Page

It's here. Be sure to duck!

The photo in balaclava hoods and helmets is a nice touch, too.

Comments

[Episiarch]

I'm guessing Radley's next "I get mail!" email segment is going to go something like "if one of us ever pulls you over, asshole, you're [insert threat here]".

[patrick]

mmmmm.....

baclava

[Michael Pack]

Radley,I'd like to hear you thoughts on Roger Clemens.He is saying the Feds pressured his trainer to finger him.From many of your stories about CI's I tend to side with Roger.It seems any tactic in the WOD is fine ,military raids and lying CI's,as long as you get the fish.In baseball none is bigger than Clemens.Not only can they run over defenseless people ,but,destroy the well to do.Maybe they bit off too much this time?

[David]

I think I've figured out a way to shore up our troop numbers while simultaneously getting rid of the stop loss policy.

[SxCx]

I like the animated GIF that previews the last thing you'll see on Earth.

[JW]

I feel safer already!

[joe]

I'm always going on about community policing and how the SWAT model encourages police to relate to the public, vs. how CP encourages them to relate to the public.

That web page certainly makes my point for me. Oh, look, dear, he's firing an assault rifle at us!

[Episiarch]

Oh, look, dear, he's firing an assault rifle at us!

Probably an MP5 (submachine gun) and not a rifle, but your sentiment is correct regardless. Nothing says "protect and serve" like staring down a firing barrel.

[joe]

It's just remarkable: he's firing at US. He's firing at the people who would go to the web-page.

It's not even a picture of a SWAT cop shooting at a bad guy, which would be a bad-enough depiction of what policing is about.

[Ayn_Randian]

I couldn't even stay on that page for 10 seconds. I started having some kind of anxiety attack or something...

[ian]

i like how after they list all the things the swat team is prepared for (hostage, presidential protection, etc.) they say that they go on about 50 missions a year and that most of them are to serve warrants at "crack houses"

[solly]

"Offering presidential protection..." y'know, for all that wild Presidential stumping that goes on there on a regular basis

[Reinmoose]

Wow. Nice touch with the waving American flag graphic

[brotherben]

tracy chapman "behind the wall"

Last night I heard the screaming
Loud voices behind the wall
Another sleepless night for me
It wont do no good to call
The police
Always come late
If they come at all

And when they arrive
They say they cant interfere
With domestic affairs
Between a man and his wife
And as they walk out the door
The tears well up in her eyes
Last night I heard the screaming
Then a silence that chilled my soul
I prayed that I was dreaming
When I saw the ambulance in the road

And the policeman said
Im here to keep the peace
Will the crowd disperse
I think we all could use some sleep

[Abdul]

It could only be better if they had a first person shooter game for the kids.

[SxCx]

You too could be the GIF guy!

[highnumber]

In the course of the work I've been doing lately, I have seen a number of local governments' websites. It's a weird, pitiful little world out there.

[Lamar]

How harmless could they be if their "guns" are nothing more than strobe lights?

[SxCx]

Police officer and correction officer applicants must successfully complete a physical ability assessment.

You have thirty seconds to dehinge the bedroom doors of all three children. GO!"

[jimmydageek]

Lamar | January 7, 2008, 10:44am | #

How harmless could they be if their "guns" are nothing more than strobe lights?

That could get pretty dangerous if the strobes happen to attract the Techno Viking.

[SxCx]

Sincere open question:

What happens when you dial 911 on the cops?

[Crackzilla]

I like how they put "crack houses" in quotations, as if they know they're not REALLY crack houses.

[Dave W.]

What happens when you dial 911 on the cops?

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/18/austin-silva-911-tape-released/

[Theophanes]

Jesus! I've got to get out of this country. I feel much more at ease knowing that local "law enforcement" consists of some sleepy looking officers in short sleeves leaning on shotguns with that eminently bribeable and under-motivated look that you find in third world cops than these dog-shooting, body-armored, military fetishists. Yeesh.

[SxCx]

http://www.readthehook.com/blog/index.php/2007/12/18/austin-silva-911-tape-released/

Jesus. It could be a fucking Laurel and Hardy routine.

"Help! Police!"

"You need the police?"

"Yes! The police are here!"

"So they've already arrived?"

"No! Yes!"

[Hayek]

tacky! Juvenile!
check out the bullshit chief Garlock tries to blow on HIS web page.

"I would like to take this opportunity to ...blah blah.. It is my hope blah blah blah... and that you will discover ways in which you can join in partnership with police to fight crime in the community."

"You will find as you look through our site that citizen/police partnerships are the foundation on which our current and future plans are built."

YUP!...nothing quite says "welcome partner citizen" as much as a depiction of a balaclava wearing goon discharging his weapon in my face when i visit the web page.

of course... no one ever said that folks that can mistake a balaclava for balls would show good judgement. Peter principle obviously in play in Lima.

[SxCx]

Eek...I mean Abbott and Costello.

Ah, whatever, they're all the same...

[JW]

It's just remarkable: he's firing at US. He's firing at the people who would go to the web-page.

You're guilty of something. Just tell us what it is and Mr. Bad Cop will go away.

Besides, you have nothing to worry about. He's firing at the unarmed civilian behind you.

[SxCx]

Mommy Mommy Mommy! Look at your son!

[joe]

Isn't it "you better love your son?"

[JW]

Gosh, that page would be perfect if it also had a midi of the SWAT theme song playing in the background as the flag waved.

Here, load this bad boy up and maximize your Intertube enjoyment of the page!

[ClubMedSux]

The Lima Police Department's Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) Team work consists of . . . protection for the President and Presidential Canidates . . .

Well at least they're not wasting taxpayer money on things like dictionaries.

[P Brooks]

Protect and Serve; On the ground, NOW, motherfucker!

[Mister DNA]

I was really hoping for a friendlier looking page replete with sparkly fonts and a midi file of "God Bless the USA".

Maybe some LOLcats for good measure...

[R C Dean]

Offering presidential protection...

Like the Secret Service would let them anywhere near the President.

[John West]

I'm surprised no one has commented on the fact that the website is glorifying the use of paramilitary weapons and tactics by the police yet one the very same page they are 'nice' enough to provide local business owners a sign suitable for hanging that prevents law abiding citizens from bringing concealed weapons into their businesses. I wonder if they will ever be 'nice' enough to make up a similar sign requiring their local SWAT team to leave the MP5s outside. I'm not holding my breath.

[Windtell]

That .gif is damn creepy; let's you know right away what they think of themselves and their job descriptions.

For me, the kicker is that there's a link to search for Sex Predators under their "Community Policing" section after we see what they consider policing.

Re Crackzilla: Too damn funny.

[JW]

Maybe some LOLcats for good measure...

Oh hai. On teh ground mutha fucka. Giv up?

or

Wer in yur homes, killin your moms.

[Lamar]

"That could get pretty dangerous if the strobes happen to attract the Techno Viking."

The Lima Police are all hooked on ecstasy and rave parties....their website is a cry for help.

[joe]

I can has stun grenade?

[Rimfax]

I couldn't even stay on that page for 10 seconds.

I recommend the Adblock Plus extension for Firefox. It made short work of that migraine-inducing image.

It allowed me to see the handy poster on the right. Are they encouraging business owners to use the poster or are they just providing a service with a poster that meets the legal limits for such a notification?

[Rimfax]

SwatCat is watching you bleed.

[brotherben]

If I'm lookin for a place to rob in Lima, I'm lookin for that notice in the window.

[robc]

Closest I could find on topic

[John C Jackson]

I emailed them. I live in Ohio ( not Lima, but not far). I let them know I don't like child murderers.

[jimmydageek]

JCJ

I hope you didn't include a signature with address and that you used different IP than yours. Good luck!

[JW]

John C--They only maimed the baby for life. They didn't kill him; only his mom.

Get your facts straight. Sheesh.

[Mister DNA]

Fourth Amendment: DO NOT WANT

[UncleBeer]

Let's see what the Lima Police Dept has to say. I've written them a nice helpful e-mail message.

++++++++
To whom it may concern:

I have sincere doubts about the propriety of the animated image on the webpage linked below. Is this hyper-aggressive profile really the one the Lima, Ohio Police Department wishes to project to viewers of your website? It is hardly in keeping with the spirit of the statement on the limapolice.com homepage: "Protecting and Serving Since 1887." Or the any of the statements about the Vision, Mission & Values. This image is most certainly not one I would expect see from a friendly, helpful, community service-minded police agency.

http://www2.wcoil.com/~lpd/swat/swat.htm

This is the "Mission Statement" for your SWAT team which comes directly from that page:

"The Lima Police Department SWAT Team stands ready to assist in the resolution of those problems, which by their nature, have a greater propensity to be dangerous. The Team will be prepared to undertake assignments which require a coordinated and calculated response for resolution. The Teams will strive for preparedness for dangerous situations through continiued training and assessment of threats to the Lima community."

Coupled with the animated image, perhaps you append the to the SWAT team mission statement, "We resolve most dangerous problems through random, pre-emptive gunfire - even before checking our spelling."

I would welcome any correspondence you may wish to undertake regarding this matter.

Robert B. Seaney
Sylvania, OH USA
++++++++++++++++

[Episiarch]

Are they encouraging business owners to use the poster or are they just providing a service with a poster that meets the legal limits for such a notification?

They're encouraging everyone. After all, when they break into your house/business, they'd rather not get shot.

All jokes aside, when I see cops encouraging disarmament (which admittedly not all of them do), right in conjunction with this incident, it really, really makes me want to bury a lot more guns in the yard.

[Aresen]

Well, if you people insist on living in the same city neighborhood house as drug dealers, you gotta be prepared to accept the consequences.

/sarcasm

[Episiarch]

Oh, and Mister DNA--nice Devo handle. Where is Mister Kamikaze?

[Jason Lefkowitz]

The city of Lima has a total population of 40,000 people.

They show 14 officers in that picture on the home page.

Why the hell do they need that many SWAT officers for a town that size? Hopefully those guys have something else to do other than sit around waiting for one of their weekly warrant-servings...

[John C Jackson]

I don't live my life in fear, so I will tell the Lima SWAT to fuckoff if I feel like it. I dont like baby-maimers either.

[Mike Laursen]

Let's do the math. 14 guys for a city of about 40,000. That's 1 SWAT team member per 2800 citizens. And about one raid per year for every 800 citizens.

[John C Jackson]

I don't actually live in Columbus,OH but technically my address is serviced by Columbus police and Columbus road people and all that stuff. I also pay about 8 different kinds of income and property taxes ( ohio has a bizarre tax system I will never understand). I can't get the police to come here for an actual crime- and Lima has 14 SWAT?

[Christ on a Cracker]

Anyone want to bet on how soon the GIF is taken down?

I'll on tomorrow.

[Christ on a Cracker]

Make that "Noon Tomorrow"

**Preview is my friend **

CoC

[Mister DNA]

Oh, and Mister DNA--nice Devo handle. Where is Mister Kamikaze?

He's out spreading genes with the Smart Patrol.

[Episiarch]

He's out spreading genes with the Smart Patrol.

Well, he is an altruistic pervert.

[Ayn_Randian]

I don't actually live in Columbus,OH but technically my address is serviced by Columbus police and Columbus road people and all that stuff.

Lemme guess...Grove-tucky?

No, Gahanna!

[P Brooks]

Maybe they'll amend their mission statement to include "protecting your police department from vicious disinformation campaigns by radical, un-American hippy drug freak liberatoonian magazines" and ask the NSA to turn over all our IP addresses.

For the children; not just Lima's children, but children everywhere.

[Jennifer]

I don't live my life in fear, so I will tell the Lima SWAT to fuckoff if I feel like it.

[Jennifer]

Stupid server squirrels crawling back. Let me try again:

I don't live my life in fear, so I will tell the Lima SWAT to fuckoff if I feel like it.

In which case you WILL live in fear. The SWAT team will see to it personally.

[Dave]

John West beat me to it, but I'll repeat it: why are the police pushing businesses to restrict peoples' rights?

Could it have anything to do with their attitude toward us "civilians?"

[UncleBeer]

Posted by Dave:

John West beat me to it, but I'll repeat it: why are the police pushing businesses to restrict peoples' rights?

They're not - sorta. The way the CCW law is written in Ohio says that any business has the right to display the sign shown. When an individual finds it posted at a building entry, carrying a concealed weapon past that point is a felony. The law requires that in order for a business wishing to ban concealed weapons on the premises must display that particular sign only. And the local police departments have been designated as one "official" source (among several) from which a business can obtain the sign.

We had one posted here at work (a small consulting engineering firm) shortly after Ohio's CCW law took effect several years ago. I took it to the gun range, shot a few holes in it, and then re-hung it. It disappeared a few days later and has yet to be re-posted.

[SxCx]

Isn't it "you better love your son?"

I'm referencing The Dicks, who are you thinking of?

[joe]

Mudhoney. Touch Me I'm Sick.

[SxCx]

Strange coincidence, as Mudhoney covered that very Dicks song...?

[joe]

If forbidding black people to enter your business, such as the American South in 1950, isn't a violation of their rights...

And if forcing businessowners to let black people patronize their establishments like everyone else IS a violation of the businessowners' rights...

Then why would forbidding people with guns from entering your establishment be a violation of their rights?

And wouldn't forcing businessowners to allow armed people to enter their establishments be a violation of the businessowners' rights?

(Personally, I'm ok with the government forbidding discrimination on the basis of race and allowing it on the basis of behavior. But then, I'm a liberal.)

[joe]

Which Dicks song?

[SxCx]

"The Dicks Hate The Police", where I quoted from. I think they worked themselves into it as well.

[pinko]

those are not Touch Me I'm Sick lyrics that line is from Hate the Police

[JW]

Then why would forbidding people with guns from entering your establishment be a violation of their rights?

It's not, but you knew that already.

[pinko]

Beat me to it.

[joe]

JW,

Dave, above, described the posting of a "no guns" sign at your business as a restriction of gun owners' rights.

[joe]

Looks like SxCx was right about the lyrics.

Hate the Police

Mommy, mommy, mommy
Look at your son
You might have loved me
But now I got a gun
You better stay out of my way
I think I've had a bad day
I've had a bad day
I've had a bad day

Daddy, daddy, daddy
Proud of your son
Got himself a good job
Killing niggers and Mexicans
I'll tell you one thing, it's true
You can't find justice, it'll find you
It'll find you
It'll find you

People tell policemen
They've met their match
Down in them desert sands
Mudhoney won't catch
Mudhoney hates policemen, yes, it's true
You can't find justice, it'll find you
It'll find you
It'll find you
It'll find you

Mommy, mommy
Look at your son
You might have loved me
A gun
You better stay out of my way
I've had a bad day
I've had a bad day
Mommy, I've had a bad day
Mommy, I've had a bad day
Mommy

[SxCx]

Now that that's behind us, let's talk about the best thing Mudhoney's ever done: had a founding member in the Melvins.

[joe]

I don't know, that parody of a techno song on "Piece of Cake" was pretty good.

Bzzt-bzzt-bzzt-bzzt-bzzt. Aieeeeeeeee!!!!!

[Jon H]

"In which case you WILL live in fear. The SWAT team will see to it personally."

I dunno, they're pretty cowardly.

[JW]

Dave, above, described the posting of a "no guns" sign at your business as a restriction of gun owners' rights.

'K. Missed that.

[Mike Laursen]

Then why would forbidding people with guns from entering your establishment be a violation of their rights?

I'm not a libertopian, but I don't think libertopian actually have any problem with setting house rules that you have to leave your weapons at the door. There are well-established precedents in Westerns, Sci Fi, and fantasy role-playing.

[mediageek]

Joe-

A business owner certainly has the right to disallow CCW permit holders from entering his place of business.

Likewise, I have the right to take my money elsewhere.

And spread the name and contact information of said business all over the internet, imploring others who may not be aware of their policy to avoid doing business with them whilst simultaneously letting them know exactly why.

It's rather amusing how quickly those signs come down after a couple of polite phone calls.

[John West]

Actually, concerning the CCW sign on the website, my comment was not intended to deny the business owners their right to post such a sign (but as was mentioned above I don't have to do business there either). I was simply pointing out how the aggressive police forces today want their guns to be the only ones in the gun fight. Nevermind what the criminals are going to do to you before the SWAT team can bravely storm into the building and shoot you anyway because cops have far more negligent discharges (NDs) than CCW holders.

[Ventifact]

By the way, in response to folks on this thread and others wondering what 14 SWAT officers do with their time: SWAT is not an officer's full-time occupation, at least not in a small jurisdiction like Lima. When the SWAT team is "needed" (some or all of the) officers who have gained a spot on the team don their special gear and use their special tactics, but the rest of the time they work other forms of police duty.

Keep in mind what this implies for statements that the creation/funding of a SWAT team leads to its overuse. If there really were a dozen SWAT officers with no duties except SWAT missions, then a-moral bureaucratic forces would lead to overuse of an overfunded gov't entity. We are actually seeing a decision for officers to spend their time doing one type of police work (SWAT) over others, and this is a less inevitable decision even given the establishment of SWAT teams in the first place. Thus to me the use of SWAT indeed carries strong moral weight, and the overuse of SWAT does tend to land in the negligence-to-malevolence spectrum.

[joe]

I don't think libertopian actually have any problem with setting house rules that you have to leave your weapons at the door. There are well-established precedents in Westerns, Sci Fi, and fantasy role-playing.

For the win.

[TrickyVic]

I think Joe's trying to make the point that we don't really have constitutionally protected rights if people are allowed to prevent the exercising of them. It's not a question of social contract theory ethics. If you have a constitutional right to X, it's the federal governemnt's job to slap anyone for not allowing you to do X.

I've never understood the concept that a place of business is a contitution free zone.

[John West]

TrickyVic, The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. You only have the rights that you force the government to give you. The reason this is so important is becuase of the monopoly status the government has. Freedom of speech and the freedom to bear arms are meant to keep the government out of your life. Businesses have no monopoly and therefore you don't have to do business with them. Moveover, the business owners have rights too. If they want the right to piss you off so you don't do business with them then who am I to stop stupidity. So its not a matter of what businesses are restricted from doing only a matter of what the government is restricted from doing.

[robc]

The question is, and I asked this once before (and some one smart-alecked the accurate answer of "both") is, If Im concealed carrying inside your house/business, am I carrying on my body or on your property?

The question is about the intersection of "rights". My argument on rights is always that a right ends when it interfers with someone else's right. So how does the right to bear arms interact with personal property rights? Which wins?

I prefer KY's method to Ohio's. You can post all the damn signs you want, but I can ignore them without breaking the law. However, if you ask me to leave your property for carrying and I dont, then Im trespassing and can be arrested.

So, to apply it to joe's questions about serving blacks in restaurants, it would work the same way. No posted sign would prevent a black from entering but if asked to leave, he would have to or be trespassing. If they dont notice he is black, just like if they dont notice Im carrying (and they never do), then no foul.

[JW]

I've never understood the concept that a place of business is a contitution free zone.

My house is the same way. I'll let you know what rights you have while in my house, should the matter arise. Feel free to leave at any time should they be not your cup of tea.

Constitutions are typically for protecting the people from the state, not from one another. Read carefully and you won't find any reference to personal conduct, save for slavery in the 13th Amendment and prohibition in the poorly thought out 18th Amendment.

[Lost In Middle America]

Ahhhhhhhh! Another SWAT team fell for that "increase your girth and length" by purchasing our "all natural fiber balaclavas" at deep discount canadian pharm. prices spam mail.

However, in their defense, I can see that they come in quite handy when folks are trying to figure out who shot the baby. (and what are we going to charge the kid with to justify it)

[robc]

JW,

None of the rights granted by my creator go away inside your living room. However, your right to property and to ask me to leave does trump all. But, I dont lose any rights inside your house.

[TrickyVic]

Then, why can't a business prevent black people from entering?

[robc]

TrickyVic,

I dont know, why cant they?

Maybe because too many people dont realize that laws that are bad because they restrict things in one way shouldnt be corrected with laws that are bad because they restrict in the opposite way?

[J sub D]

Then, why can't a business prevent black people from entering?

Don't ask me? If you want to turn away a potential 10% of paying customers and alienate who knows how many whites like me, go ahead. Just don't expect me to grace you with my refined manners. I can be a real *^&@$?+! when i'm angry.

[TrickyVic]

"""TrickyVic, The Constitution is a contract between the people and the government. You only have the rights that you force the government to give you. The reason this is so important is becuase of the monopoly status the government has. Businesses have no monopoly and therefore you don't have to do business with them. Moveover, the business owners have rights too."""

The monopoly status only applies to the federal government. You have the right to move from state to state in the same manner as going from store to store, albeit more difficult. Does that mean the Constitution doesn't apply to states? Of course not.

[Dave W.]

because it makes sense for the law to draw a distinction between places used as areas of public accomodation and places used as private dwellings.

It makes the law a little harder, both because a line has to be drawn and because two different sets of rules have to be crafted, and that works as a tax on the intellect of the simpleminded, but, despite these complications, it is good policy not to treat all kinds of land use as one size fits all.

[JW]

I dont lose any rights inside your house.

It may be a matter of semantics, but I can restrict any number of your activities inside my home, including speech, religion and the right to bear arms. I can also curtail what we would consider "liberty": smoking, drinking, etc.

Now, whether you actually "lose" them (as opposed to me suspending them) is a matter of debate, but for all intents and purposes, you have done just that for the duration of your visit.

I owe you nothing, except to respect your right to your own property, being your body. I can't directly harm you, but other than that, all bets are off.

[robc]

Does that mean the Constitution doesn't apply to states?

Prior to the 14th amendment....

[TrickyVic]

robc and J Sub D,

Are you guys playing dumb? 😉 I'm sure there is a Denny's manager that has the answer.

[robc]

It may be a matter of semantics

yeah probably.

but I can restrict any number of your activities inside my home, including speech, religion and the right to bear arms.

No you cant. You can ask me to leave if you choose to use my rights, but I lose neither my right to speech, religion or bearing.

Probably semantics, because I know what you mean, but your only recourse against my rights is to ask me to leave.

[joe]

Places of public accomodation are treated differently from private residences under the law because being able to utilize places of public accomodation is necessary to living as a free person in society, and being able to enter other people's homes is not.

Some people like to argue that the restriction on the freedom of the Georgia motel owner to discriminate against black people is a greater imposition on him than the Georgia motels owners' refusal to let rooms to blacck people is upon African Americans in Georgia.

Let's look at that. Before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Earl the motel owner operated a motel, taking money from people who showed up at his door and letting them sleep in his rooms. Clarence the black mechanic could not travel overnight with his family because he could not be confident that he would have anyplace for his children to stay.

After the Civil Rights Act passed, Earl's life was exactly the same, except for the race of some of his customers, while Clarence was able to enjoy a vastly expanded degree of freedom of movement and choice.

[robc]

TrickyVic

Are you guys playing dumb?

Maybe because too many people dont realize that laws that are bad because they restrict things in one way shouldnt be corrected with laws that are bad because they restrict in the opposite way?

I thought I answered it wisely.

[joe]

If you want to claim that Earl's ability to deny a room to Clarence is of greater import than Clarence's ability to travel with his family, go right ahead.

Just don't pretend that your position represents the greater expansion of human freedom.

[robc]

joe,

And while the world is a better place, that isnt the (at least my) standard.

Clarence had no right to accomidation. Earl lost his association/property rights.

The law clearly took Earl's rights away. Earl was a racist prick, but he still had rights.

[robc]

joe,

Just don't pretend that your position represents the greater expansion of human freedom.

Heh, timing. My position represents the greater expansion of human freedom.

[JasonL]

Businessowners should have the right not to serve anyone and should be able to enforce a trespass. They should not have an additional statute that makes it an extra special crime to carry a weapon on their property.

Carry concealed, don't go to places that will pat you down, and everyone wins. If you have to sling lead in self defence in that business, a trespassing fine will be marginal to your other considerations.

[TrickyVic]

"""because it makes sense for the law to draw a distinction between places used as areas of public accomodation and places used as private dwellings."""

Absolutely. But that's getting watered down too.

I just having a little fun. Certainly a store owner has the right to set his rules, maybe even to bar race if he wants his business to go down the tubes. I would not give that place my money either.

I find it very interesting with respects to what truly is a right. What does having a "right to do something" mean?

[joe]

robc,

Except it clearly does not represent the greater expansion of human freedom. The imposition on Earl is clearly much, much less than the imposition of the old order on Clarence.

You are simply declaring that Earl's ability to do what he wants is a "right," and that as such, it is worthy of greater respect under the law.

Whether that is true or not, the sum total of human freedom was considerably expanded when all the Clarences in Georgia became capable of living much richer, more varied, more dynamic lives - even if it came as the cost of Earl having to make a miniscule change in how he does business. And yes, that last sentence remains true even if you use the words "property" and "rights" a lot.

Rights are one thing. Freedom is another. Sometimes two imperatives clash. The restriction of Earl's "right" eroded freedom much less (if it can be said to have done so at all) than the expansion of Clarence's opportunities and experiences and choices expanded freedom.

[joe]

Maybe, robc, protecting Earl's rights is worth some reduction in the sum total of human freedom. That doesn't make it any less of a loss for freedom.

[robc]

Rights are one thing. Freedom is another.

No they arent. I think it can be argued that freedom is just a measure of rights.

Clarence gained nothing that also wouldnt have been gained by me or you moving to GA and opening a multi-racial motel. Im sure the Patels that run every motel in GA today would still be taking everyone's money. The important aspect on freedom was getting rid of the Jim Crowe Laws. Without them, allowing business owners to run their businesses as they please maximizes freedom.

[TrickyVic]

Robc, you answered too wisely. lol.

[robc]

joe,

Protecting rights is always a gain in freedom.

[JasonL]

joe is asserting positive liberty and robc denies such a thing can exist.

I question the logic of a positive liberty to a hotel room myself. What if the price is too high? Does that constitute a reduction in freedom because fewer people can afford it? Freedom or liberty seem misplaced names for a lack of options. I mean, you can use the words if you want, but then you need another concept to align with the opposite of "coerced".

[Ventifact]

I prefer KY's method to Ohio's. You can post all the damn signs you want, but I can ignore them without breaking the law. However, if you ask me to leave your property for carrying and I dont, then Im trespassing and can be arrested.

How is such a sign not equivalent to asking someone to leave for carrying? The only real gray area I see here is that signs can be not noticed, unlike someone making eye contact and speaking in your face. Spoken requests are after-the-fact and so to me inferior for all parties involved. Also, concealed weapons carriers will be carrying their weapons concealed. (The obvious is obviously obvious.) How would a property owner know which person to ask to leave for carrying? A sign solves this by essentially querying each prospective entrant to a place and explaining that they are unwelcome with concealed weapons.

But shit, I'd never ban concealed weapons in my store. I'd invite those customers, maybe give some discounts.

[matt]

40,081. Population of Lima, Ohio according to Wiki/2000 census data. Originally created as an anti-sniper unit... wonder how many snipers have attacked Lima, Ohio?

[joe]

robc,

It's a nice little story that Georgia was chock full of motels run by people who would have loved to rent out rooms to black people, but it's not true. Segregation was a coordinated governmental, social, and economic system.

If there were Patels all over Georgia in 1950, you would have a point, but there weren't. Segregation was widely supported, and it was only the odd duck who objected to it.

Protecting rights is always a gain in freedom. Is this the part where I cross myself, or where I beat my breast three times?

JasonL,

What if the price is too high? Does that constitute a reduction in freedom because fewer people can afford it? Yes, the people who cannot afford it are not free to stay there. Not all restrictions on freedom are bad. No one, for example, has any problem with your right to impinge on the freedom of a group of strangers who want to come into your living room. If you want to use coercive force to keep them out, even to the point of putting a gun in their face, go right ahead.

[robc]

How would a property owner know which person to ask to leave for carrying?

Metal detectors?

Ive really no clue, which is why it has never been a problem just walking by the signs (although I usually try to follow the property owners wishes, but Im not going back to my car if it isnt convenient).

I did have a client once who found out I carried and got a little uneasy about it. Not himself, just if his big bosses found out. They didnt post a sign or anything, but I think it may have been company policy for employees. He just told me to make sure I stayed concealed. IT departments are usually cool about these things.

[joe]

robc,

Today, after one of the most effective social engineering exercises in world history, we could probably repeal all of the anti-discrimination laws and all the Clarences in Georgia would be perfectly free to travel with their families.

Because, you see, things changed. Social standards changed. Business practices changed. And the decades of experience of white and black people living with equal rights and freedom, and living integrated lives, brought about that change.

We are a much freer nation, overall, because Earl's freedom to run his business like a bigot was curtailed.

[robc]

No one, for example, has any problem with your right to impinge on the freedom of a group of strangers who want to come into your living room.

And yet it all changes if I want to rent my living room out for the night.

I dont see the frickin difference. Private property is private property.

[robc]

Because, you see, things changed. Social standards changed. Business practices changed. And the decades of experience of white and black people living with equal rights and freedom, and living integrated lives, brought about that change.

Nope. The change happened because baseball integrated. It had nothing to do with the civil rights laws. It just looked like it because it took some time and happened to more coincide with the civil rights laws.

[robc]

We are a much freer nation, overall, because Earl's freedom to run his business like a bigot was curtailed.

Nope. I might grant you "better" but Im not going to grant "much freer". We are less free.

[joe]

And yet it all changes if I want to rent my living room out for the night.

Actually, that's not true. Private homes in which one of the rooms are rented out are not subject to anti-discrimination laws. Even apartment houses with a limited number of units - usually under 6 or 4 - are exempted. The law really does only apply to places of public accomodation.

It just looked like it because it took some time and happened to more coincide with the civil rights laws. Does the prominent role that astounding coincidences play in your political philosophy ever get to you?

We are less free. Earl's less free. Clarence is much more free. And Clarence's freedom expanded much more than Earl's contracted.

[Ventifact]

I might grant you "better" but Im not going to grant "much freer". We are less free.

While not conceding any point about freedom or related semantics, you have essentially endorsed joe's point that the civil rights legislation was a (")good(") thing.

[J sub D]

Boy throw one flippant (but true) comment out there and come back later. Wow. I know what the law is about public accomadation. I don't agree with it. I think bigots are stupid &%$*^%s, but I regretfully must allow them to be &$*%^#s.

All clear now?

[Robert]

It's just remarkable: he's firing at US. He's firing at the people who would go to the web-page.

That's how Sledge Hammer! used to open every week.

[robc]

Earl's less free. Clarence is much more free.

Bullshit. I hate to keep repeating myself.
Earl is less free. Clarence is exactly the same amount of free. He gained no freedom. See JasonL's comment at 5:04.

[robc]

joe's point that the civil rights legislation was a (")good(") thing.

Lots of bad things can lead to good results. The ends dont justify the means. Invading a foreign country and overthrowing a dictator hypothetically can lead to good results too. That doesnt mean doing it for pissant reasons is justified, even if it works flawlessly.

[Ventifact]

robc -- Essentially I meant to call you on your wording, not your point, because I figured your wording was not accurately matched to the point you had in mind. I believe I was right. You say good things can happen for the wrong reasons, but still you haven't caught the distinction I'm trying to raise, which is that you are defining as "good" outcomes rather than intentions. If the country is "better" as an unqualified statement of value, then you are saying that the overall judgment of a country is not in its freedoms (as a libertarian sees them) but in its quality of life (as, e.g., a liberal sees it). You are essentially expressing a value judgment away from (radical) libertarianism.

[Dave W.]

But shit, I'd never ban concealed weapons in my store. I'd invite those customers, maybe give some discounts.

If there was an injury from accidental discharge of a customers gun, or a customer shot a bystander during a robbery, would you be willing to pay compensation to the injured party?

[JasonL]

"If there was an injury from accidental discharge of a customers gun, or a customer shot a bystander during a robbery, would you be willing to pay compensation to the injured party?"

Zog save us from litigators. You'd have to argue that the shop owner was somehow negligent in permitting passive, legal possession of a means of self defence to exist on his property. You'd never on this earth be able to make any statistical connection between likihood of harm and presence of lawful CCWs in your building.

As long as we are making outrageous hypothetical arguments, what about some woman who gets sexually assaulted in the restroom of your gun free place of business when she otherwise could have shot the guy in the face? Are you willing to pay compensation?

[TrickyVic]

"""If there was an injury from accidental discharge of a customers gun, or a customer shot a bystander during a robbery, would you be willing to pay compensation to the injured party?"""

Why should he? Isn't this the womb of nannyism, the concept that someone else can be responsible your behavior?

[Vent]

And anyway the hypothetical harming of an innocent by a concealed carrier is extraordinarily unlikely.