2 ms·

> He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoo

> He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. Spare me. This has nothing to do with the technicalities of free speech. A right incidentally that Islamists who cut peoples heads off don't accept. It is certainly rational to arrest someone for screaming they are about to kill rather than waiting for them to go through with it.

pessimizer 6y ago
> screaming they are about to kill Was there another story?
dmitrygr 6y ago
> It is certainly rational to arrest > someone for screaming they are > about to kill With you so far. But the guy in the story did not do that...
- recuter 6y ago
  > He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. I'm all for free speech and I understand slippery slopes and don't approve of thought policing. My reading of this article is that they had sufficient evidence to arrest him, technicalities and legalities aside.
  - dmitrygr 6y ago
    I have several knives and weapons at my house. And "endorse" is a slippery word. Hell, my comment above could be construed as endorsing this guy (by refusing to condemn him loudly enough). Thus, transitively, I can be said to have endorsed this killing. Should I be arrested?
    - recuter 6y ago
      Nope, you should not be arrested. As I said, I understand the slippery slope argument. Look at me applying my subjective judgment to differentiate these two situations as if this is real life. Thought exercise - could you construct a hypothetical situation where you/he should be arrested? Clearly there is some line, some combination of evidence and circumstance which would allow justify an arrest and search. And if they are mistaken for doing this and discover they overreacted I'm sure some lawyer will be glad to sue the French government on these technicalities and ensure heads would roll. ;)

pessimizer 6y ago

> screaming they are about to kill Was there another story?

dmitrygr 6y ago

> It is certainly rational to arrest > someone for screaming they are > about to kill With you so far. But the guy in the story did not do that...

recuter 6y ago
> He was already on the radar of the authorities for having endorsed a massacre at the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo that first published the Mohammed cartoons. > Several knives and other weapons were found at his home, prosecutor Frederic Chevallier. I'm all for free speech and I understand slippery slopes and don't approve of thought policing. My reading of this article is that they had sufficient evidence to arrest him, technicalities and legalities aside.
- dmitrygr 6y ago
  I have several knives and weapons at my house. And "endorse" is a slippery word. Hell, my comment above could be construed as endorsing this guy (by refusing to condemn him loudly enough). Thus, transitively, I can be said to have endorsed this killing. Should I be arrested?
  - recuter 6y ago
    Nope, you should not be arrested. As I said, I understand the slippery slope argument. Look at me applying my subjective judgment to differentiate these two situations as if this is real life. Thought exercise - could you construct a hypothetical situation where you/he should be arrested? Clearly there is some line, some combination of evidence and circumstance which would allow justify an arrest and search. And if they are mistaken for doing this and discover they overreacted I'm sure some lawyer will be glad to sue the French government on these technicalities and ensure heads would roll. ;)