Republican Reps Ask AG Holder to Investigate SWAT-ing
87 Republican representatives have asked Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether federal laws were broken in the growing practice of “SWAT-ing.” The letter explains the problem:
Investigators have concluded that the majority of SWAT-ting cases utilize voice over Internet (VOIP) connections between the suspect’s computer and a distant telephone network, and then dialing 911. This enables the suspect to falsify their identifying information, such as their telephone number and address, and make it nearly impossible for emergency dispatchers to identify or track the true origin of the call, or even pin-point calls from VOIP connections.
Some of these calls involve embellished schemes, including armed suspects and hostages, and in some instances, the caller claims that he has just killed someone. Moreover, the caller knowingly uses the identifying information of another person, who is usually an adversary of the caller. This elaborate hoax is all done with the goal of having law enforcement swarm the home of the caller’s foe, which only incites fear in and tarnishes the reputation of an innocent person.
Dangerous on its face, the practice has recently become a political weapon deployed against conservative bloggers, apparently by some left-wing activists who want to punish those they disagree with politically:
Even worse, SWAT-ting is quickly becoming a scare tactic used against political bloggers, essentially stifling those bloggers’ First Amendment rights. Just last month, a popular blogger in the state of Georgia, Erick Erickson, became the latest victim of SWAT-ting. During the Erickson’s family dinner, sheriff’s deputies were dispatched to Erickson’s home after receiving a 911 call reporting an accidental shooting that appeared to have come from Erickson’s address. Fortunately, Erickson previously alerted police to SWAT-ting tactics; however, numerous similar scenarios have ended with guiltless victims held at gunpoint.
While it is less than clear that there is a legitimate federal issue here (false police reports and reckless endangerment would seem to be state crimes, not federal), one would hope that putting a stop to such blatant political harassment would be a bipartisan issue. Unfortunately, however, all 87 signatories on the letter were Republicans–not a single Democrat signed on. Moreover, reaction from the blogosphere has largely split on partisan lines, with conservatives trying to drum up support for the First Amendment while their critics make excuses, blame the victims, or just ignore the issue entirely.
This is unacceptable. Even in our polarized political culture, we should be capable of agreeing on the basic idea that political dissent is not punishable by having the police show up with guns drawn based on a false report of a crime.
Share This
First off, I think that this practice is reprehensible; no matter who’s doing it, or who it’s being done to.
That being said, why is it that Conservatives seem to have no idea what the 1st Amendment actually means?
If SWAT teams were showing up on Erick Erickson’s door because of something he wrote on RedState, that would be a 1st Amendment issue. But while some moronic private citizen calling in a fake 911 call because they didn’t like what he wrote should certainly be a crime, it has absolutely nothing to do with the 1st Amendment.
The 1st Amendment guarantees us the right to say just about any stupid thing we’d like. It protects us from retaliation by the government for our speech. It does not however mean that we can just say whatever we want, and expect no consequences at all.
** again just to be clear, I do NOT condone this “SWATing” BS in any way shape or form, anyone who is doing this should be in jail.
I have no reason to accept the word of the right wing blogosphere.
I refuse to get upset until someobody proves that:
A. these events happened.
and
B. These events were caused by left wingers trying to silence these bloggers.
The Right Wing MO is and has been make yourself a victim, early and often.
And, while we are discussing this so called problem, why do police units use SWAT Teams anyway?
If we are going to join together in a cause, let us all, left, right, and middle oppose the militarization of the Police.
I said I’d not say anything more about any of this author’s threads, or about this farce, but after looking at the letter and determining that many (27)are from the Tea Party Caucus of the 112th congress and others belong to Tea Party Nation, I did some research about how much of swatting is done. Here’s an FBI report which lists 5 (five) repeat offenders.
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/february/swatting020408
I wish this would be the last of this phony war to show up on TMV, but I fear it won’t be.
According to Senator Saxby Chambliss of Georgia (on Fox News, naturally) the entire database consists of THREE prank phone calls. (Not all of which are in any wise traceable to the “scapegoat” boogieman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AsLOtfOL7I
Is that really something to make a LITERAL Federal Case out of?
I think not.
The “danger” represented here, is that unlike a phony call to a pizza delivery shop, the responders show up with M-16s. If there’s “danger” in this, it’s from unprofessional and uncontrolled SWAT teams, NOT from prank phone calls.
This “martyr” hysteria on the part of the collected bloggers is as self-serving as it is laughably absurd and craven.
Ohio, thanks for that link. Jeez, to me this is akin to yelling fire in a crowded performance of Madonna exposing her nipple, only far, far worse.
I mean, if someone doesn’t like my views (by the way some people wonder why we anonymous commenters “hide behind” our avatars; here is a good example), which I am expressing over the internet (I think, that is interstate, i.e., federal), if they pull a swatting on me, the FBI should be called in, indeed.
This is reprehensible but something that should be taken care of by state and local authorities not the Feds.
@Hart Williams:
“This “martyr” hysteria on the part of the collected bloggers is as self-serving as it is laughably absurd and craven.”
True!
I guess this is technically correct. The constitution limits government power. A private person has no right to try and intimidate someone else for _any_ reason. So “swatting” would be just as illegal if they were doing it because the victim had asked out the wrong girl. That said…
-Government has, under the first amendment, to make sure that those in government power don’t turn a bind eye to the law because of the political viewpoints of parties involved.
-Society suffers from any infringement on speech and so ensuring enforcement of the law is justified.
That said, it probably is really a state issue and the federal gov. should probably have a only supportive roll in that regard.
Well, some have suggested, with some merit, that such actions are rare. They claim they aren’t worth the attention.
Ironically, the quickest way to deal them would seem to be to simply take actions to stop (they are, after all, wrong even if they are rare) and move on. Attempts to minimize these actions will probably only cause more argument and attention to the issue.
However, I’m well aware that subtext for all this is attempts on each side to use things like this to make the other look bad. This is a symptom of the damage that partisanship is causing the body politic. Since both side feel they can use isolated events like this or, for another example the Gifford shooting, to paint everyone on the “other side” (in spite of the fact that you can’t use the specific to prove the general), they also feel vulnerable to such actions used against them. So the net result is that we don’t seem to be able to just say, “this wrong, lets stop it and move on.”
Wait til the first innocent swatting victim gets killed, then you will see the feds jump into action.
BTW, how far are we away from a national sales tax on internet sales.
there are a good many rational comments at tmv on the previous post on this particular circumstance re this situ. Most there, and here, are still in the “show me, Im from Missourah’ category.
For me personally, my own writing over these years about actual imprisonments, but sadly too of actual murders of real moms and dads, teens and children, grandmas and grandpas, parents and single people, monks and nuns in burma/myanmar and egypt and iran who were coldly murdered by ‘the other side’ for texting, blogging, speaking up, I find it challenging, in comparison, to see the fanning of something here in the US with the cutesy name ‘SWATing” (as if in memory of killing a fly), meaning a murder, ‘that almost/kinda/ sorta/ but not really, didnt happen.
To my mind the innocent dead of Syria, Egypt, Iran, Burma and more, who were not ‘SWATed’… but OUTRIGHT murdered hold the keystone compared to the dust raised about what ‘mighta kinda coulda happened’ in this situ in the US. For those murdered, truly put their lives on the line for justice for ALL, BUT as in the US situ, there was no call in advance, no looking out the window and seeing the murderers coming. No opening the door oneself. No explaining of anything. No questioning of anything. Just sudden explosion of body and dead red blood everywhere.
My son, SpOps, laughs and calls this USA situ a cartoon grandstanding flap (not the person) broadcast far and wide re ‘kinda sorta practically happened but didnt’… as attention grab for other agenda.
On another note altogether, there’s hardly a military man alive who doesnt take umbrage (son and hubby, military men both,) when another person makes claims to have been in life-threatening battle when they in fact are not and were not.
In psychology, we also have a category about those who wish to present as ‘the assailed hero’ without having been in the weeks and months and years of direct danger.
Just my .02
Thank you, Dr. E,. for a perspective based on reason (and experience), not hyperbole.
I’m finding this whole story disheartening. Both the story and the reaction to it. I have to say something because it’s being weighing on me all day. I’m trying to separate reason from emotion, but I’m afraid I might fail, so I ask for forgiveness in advance. I can picture in my mind’s eye a SWAT team coming through my front door with guns out, making me stay outside while they search my kids rooms where they are sleeping, and to say that is no big deal is quite incomprehensible to me. How would that affect my wife who lives in fear of a certain abusive individual in her past coming for her? How would that affect my kid who has PTSD from some traumatizing experiences? Sorry for getting personal here, but that’s why I’m having trouble getting past the emotion of this. Yes, Dr. E, if I lived in a different country under a totalitarian regime, maybe I’d just shrug, but I don’t.
When Henry Louis Gates was questioned and arrested by police for appearing to break into his own home, that was a teachable moment about race for all of us. When a police officer uses pepper spray or a tazer, we all get lessons on how there is a slight chance of death from these things, and therefore they should be banned or at least definitely not used against those making political speech. But, when a SWAT team busts in because someone decided it would be fun to watch us be terrified, we’re supposed to just be grateful we didn’t die and move on? I’m having trouble understanding this line of reasoning, but again maybe it’s just my emotion getting the best of me.
As for the skepticism. Skepticism is a good thing, but CNN is reporting this as fact. Could it all be made up? I suppose, but so could anything else we all opine about. If facts change, I’ll change my mind, but right now this appear to be legit in at least one case, which implies that the others probably aren’t totally made up either. To those who still doubt, if you can honestly tell me that you would have the same restraint if the tables were turned, and this was a left-wing activist being allegedly targeted (say, a young college student who wants birth control to be provided by her health plan and speaks up about it), then I’ll respect your point of view. Otherwise, the tendency to defend our own and blame the victim, if the victim is someone you disagree with, is disturbing.
Violence and intimidation, whether it happens once or a thousand times, ought to be met with unqualified condemnation. This is something we ought to be able to come together on. It doesn’t weaken your position to admit that people who share your political views can act in vile ways.
Now that I’ve said my peace from my emotional side, I’ll try to respond to some other points using my normal reasoned and calm persona.
TO,
Your link is from 2008. The recent discussion on this because of the alleged use of this tactic for political reasons. Of course any crime like this needs to be investigated, but doing it to intimidate those on the other side of a political argument is especially disturbing and worthy of more widespread attention. If you don’t believe that, then why did we pay so much attention to Gabrielle Giffords when people get shot all the time?
Hart,
Anytime police draw their weapon, there is a real inherent danger, both to the officer and those he might confront, even if the officer and the other party do everything right. If that weren’t obvious, this is why officer don’t draw their weapons when they pull you over for speeding. Causing an officer to draw his or her weapon by giving false information is putting both the officer and others in danger. Not to mention the indirect “wolf crying” effect.
Adeline’sDad, best to read the police report to get the actual details. As I mentioned above, for me, I’m focused on the flap, not about the person. The flap has, in my opinion, greatly inflated the situs. Reading across the net, the ‘almost happened’ trope literally, to my mind, makes a serious set of issues trivial. Again, just my two cents. Nowhere did I say a person should not be alarmed. Again, read the actual police report of protocol followed. There are often in ‘the fog’ three sides to a story, one of each side carrying truths, and a third side that in time reveals more well defined truths. In terms of investigations of these situs of blogger writing his opinions, blogger being harassed, false report to police, pre, during and post actions on parts of officers and subject, suspect who made the call, including what has occurred since, etc… the flaps without all the facts is noteworthy. Again, flap can detract immensely from the serious issues. It can harm a cause. It can sink the claims.
Some of the actual hard facts which appear to be true, have to do imo with a person allegedly impersonating another for criminal purposes (it is against the law to make a false report to law enforcement), claiming falsely that a crime of murder had been committed by a well known district attorney, allegedly setting in motion a reaction from police on that basis.
(Louie Gates wasnt arrested for ‘breaking into his own home.’ He was arrested for disorderly conduct.)
(The man who shot Gabby Giffords and killed a child and other persons was not making a political statement. He suffers from a form of mental illness that in psychosis divides the world into good and evil, with the mentally ill person being good. Orgs, gx and sites that are extreme ‘us against them’ attract ill persons who fantasize they are the mediators of evil, just as they attract regular people).
Dr E, do you have a link to the police report? I can’t comment on the flap as I haven’t been on top of it all, but what concerns me is not the specific details but the idea that doing this is not that bad because there’s only been a few isolated cases, or it’s not that dangerous, or the victims must be exaggerating, etc.
(I’m not saying you’ve been making all of those arguments. My rant was not only directed at you.)
Re: Gates. Yes, and it became the subject of a national discussion on race, long before all of the facts were out. But to try to bring attention to the SWATing situation to talk about political intimidation is not warranted?
Re: Giffords. Yes, and still the shooting was used to criticize conservatives for talking in ways that a mentally ill person might misunderstand. And yet we can’t bring up this case where it appears someone is putting right-wing bloggers and their families in danger, in part because it doesn’t happen that often? As we were frequently told during the Giffords discussions, it only takes one.
My point is not to downplay the significance of the discussion that we had about Gates and Giffords. My point is that this belongs in the same category, but there are some that want to downplay it because, it appears (for lack of any other better reason) because the politics of the discussion aren’t advantageous to their side.
My point about Gifford wasn’t to equate the two situations. It was to not how things that are clearly “wrong” and should simply be dealt with as something wrong get caught up in the partisan war. Whether it is partisanship trumping the issue of whether a clearly disturbed man should have been institutionalize (which never got discussed in all the shouting) or whether something that was simply a crime becomes a political football.
I generally don’t make points I don’t think I can back up “hard and fast”. I’m going to break from that. As I said above, there is the issue with each side trying to exaggerate vs. minimize what was a bad things to do because partisanship works that say, and that often trumps I reasonable and measured response to things. But I am actually a bit troubled by this beyond the immediate facts.
I’ve been following politics for a while. I’ve seen rhetoric get more and more “hateful”from both sides. I’ve seem more stories recently about how this is stepping over the line into intimidation and even violence. Now both sides make their own stories to be the “end of the world” and, conversely, minimize anything on the other side. I also have personally pointed out that you can’t infer the general from the specific (a rash of stories don’t make a general trend). So I don’t know if there is a real problem here. But I would be lying if I said I wasn’t concerned.
thanks david: You said it better than I could: you hit it square on the head: “Now both sides make their own stories to be the “end of the world” and, conversely, minimize anything on the other side.”
looks to me Adeline’s Dad, that the ‘looking into’ request to E Holder would protect all sides, not just one side, were it to find merit. I also find interesting that ‘sheriff’s deputies’ are referenced by some bloggers as SWAT. They’re not. Gives reason to David’s remark.
“If we are going to join together in a cause, let us all, left, right, and middle oppose the militarization of the Police.”
Agreed. This stuff about SWAT-ing smells like another micro-tempest for reactionary bloggers to get themselves lathered up about. We have REAL problems to deal with in this country. The quote above represents the closest one to the alleged subject.
AD
The FBI report from 2008 is the only one I could find; I assume that is because there are no more recent statistics because there hasn’t been a need (or even many similar acts) until this alleged incident occurred.
If the incident occurred, and I have no idea whether it occurred or not – nor how serious it actually was, it is indeed especially disturbing if it was done to harrass someone because of their political views. It is equally disturbing that if it occurred, it would be used for political gain in membership and money.
Whether it actually occurred or not, the right wing entities mentioned above are using it in a manner that invites skepticism about both their motives and their good sense. A normal person who was intimidated in this way wouldn’t use it to gain readership and raise money – a flim-flam artist probably would. That is what seems to me to be occurring.
I am less concerned about the “militarization of the Police” than I am about anyone using police actions in their attempt to create paranoia in their followers.
Even in our polarized political culture, we should be capable of agreeing on the basic idea that political dissent is not punishable by having the police show up with guns drawn based on a false report of a crime.
I agree with this and I would guess so does almost everyone else. The question is if the requested investigation by the Feds is justified, and I’d have to say no. As others have pointed out the frequency and legitimacy of the claims are unclear, and there is no apparent reason to escalate investigation above the local and state levels. The first amendment issue is a red herring, as there is no attempt by the government to suppress speech.
Beyond that, this has the air of manufactured partisan faux outrage. Yes, the left loves to do this sort of thing too but that doesn’t make it any more attractive or acceptable when the right tries it.
This may all be smoke and mirrors depending on the accuracy of the reporting (they never screw up do they), but if there is/are real incidents where swat/police are responding to false reports AND it involves political blogging, then the FBI should at least use use its electronic resources to find the perps. Then let them sort out the fed/state jurisdictional issue.
You can’t let a trend like this grow, if it is real because it will be used in other localities throughout the country, again, IF TRUE.
Jeez, the feds wound up down in Florida in the TM/GZ case, didn’t they?
dd
So much for all the concern over warrentless wiretapping, eh? Where’s the Feds when you need them!
I would think that the alleged incidents occurring in 3 different states plus on the internet would mean a federal investigation. Whether this has anything to do with Kimberlin is only speculation even from the alleged victims, but somebody is doing something and the actions should be stopped.
I will let the authorities sort it out and maintain my skepticism about any further attempts to exploit the situation.
The first question that comes to my mind is why no Democrat signed the letter to Holder….
The first link (which contains the letter to Holder) takes you to an article that says, “Adams collected a little over 80 House signatures for her letter last Friday afternoon from her colleagues on the House floor during votes, a task rarely accomplished in such a short period of time before the weekend of a recess week.”
Therefore in response to my first question, the Republicans were running around, trying to get signatures on the letter in a hurry. There is nothing suggesting that Dems were even asked to sign the letter. I’d like to know if the Dems were given the opportunity to sign. Quite frankly if a Republican put a piece of paper under my nose and asked me to sign it I would want enough time to review it and ensure that it is appropriate and that it addresses my concerns as well. Until there is ANY explanation as to why a Dem did not sign the Holder letter, that fact that no Dem signed it does not mean anything.
Moreover it seems that a couple of the incidents are mostly tied to a domestic terrorist and his supporters. Since the conservatives are saying that liberals are perpetuating these SWAT tactics against conservatives suddenly liberals are domestic terrorists. I’m sorry but I find that vile. The statement that says liberals are behind this (when at least a couple of the incidents are tied to a domestic terrorist and his friends) really doesn’t bring Americans together and these sorts of statements are one reason why the country is so polarized.
It seems that it’s not political dissent that’s being attacked (with liberals being the so-called perpetrators against conservatives) but rather it’s domestic terrorists (when a reason is known) to be pulling these stunts against their enemies. The fact that political dissent is under attack, when none of the examples have political dissent (just conservatives going after domestic terrorists) is vile. I think we all agree, liberals and conservatives, that domestic terrorism should be fought and all bloggers should be able to post well-researched stories supported by facts. Unfortunately terrorists (domestic and otherwise) will use any means they can to attack their enemies. They’re not called domestic terrorists for nothing.
I was appalled upon hearing this and it does need to be dealt with and nipped in its bud as quickly as possible. I think writing a letter to Holder is appropriate and I trust he will respond in a positive way.
As far as some constructive criticism on the article. I feel that it’s highly partisan and unfairly equates liberals with domestic terrorists who attack conservative bloggers. The piece seems to say that political dissent is under attack, yet the couple examples given seem to indicate that it is domestic terrorists retaliating against their enemies. Lastly, there is also nothing about Democratic lawmakers’ reactions. I think a less partisan piece would have indicated whether the Dems were given the letter for review, asked to have their concerns expressed or even asked to sign the Holder letter. There is no explanation as to why Dems did not sign the letter. The piece portrays the Republicans as taking all the action, and that liberals are not concerned and are not taking any action.
It seems that the authorities are handling this and that Holder is looking into this. Does anyone have any other ideas of what can be done?
Again, I think the practice is vile and it needs to be stopped, but I would have liked to have had more insight into the perceived liberal opposition (the legislators) the author has.
Stock, please, it’s politics.
The Dems wouldn’t use the congressional toilet paper if they knew a Rep janitor installed the roll. And vica versa for Reps.
TO and StockBoy,
I agree completely that this is a matter that should be dealt with by the authorities, does not need to be exploited, and doesn’t reflect on liberals at all. My reaction was specifically at those who not just criticize the exploitation, but diminish the seriousness of the situation, such as by saying it doesn’t happen that often, or that it’s not that dangerous, or the victims are probably exaggerating, or that they enjoy playing the victim, or that it’s much worse in other countries.
I wasn’t originally going to comment because it seems like a no-brainer “let the authorities investigate and move on”. It was the dismissal that got under my skin. The message that is sends, whether intended or not, is that this sort of behavior is tolerable. It’s not, and that should be clearly stated without qualification, no matter who the targets are or whoever is exploiting it for political gain. I agree with davidp that if that were unanimously done, the issue would be done, or at least would remain relegated to partisan conspiracy blogs.
ad
“It was the dismissal that got under my skin. The message that is sends, whether intended or not, is that this sort of behavior is tolerable. It’s not, and that should be clearly stated without qualification, no matter who the targets are or whoever is exploiting it for political gain. I agree with davidp that if that were unanimously done, the issue would be done, or at least would remain relegated to partisan conspiracy blogs.”
No one has stated nor implied that such behavior is tolerable. It is intolerable and such as been stated over and over. The issue was and is relegated to partisan conspiracy blogs until some of their members decided to bring it to TMV with uncritical acceptance that it was a liberal operative named Kimberlin who was the culprit and calls for a jihad against that person.
Some of us who have no desire to propagate either the intolerable behaviour or jihads with no evidence have no choice but to call them on exploiting the incident to raise money, excite their readers, and now complain about it spilling over into congress ending with a call for the AG to investigate.
Moderate sensible people would have alerted authorities, given them any help available, and let them handle an investigation. They would not use the situation to raise money and in general exploit their credulous followers by accusing a person they have no way of knowing was involved or not. If they had evidence of his involvement there would be an end to the investigation.
We have seen these people in action before. We know how they operate through innuendo and false testimony. It does no one good service to call it partisanship to expose these actions for what they are and I am most distressed that it has blighted this moderate website.
dduck, hahaha. Politics indeed and such behavior has poisoned public discourse and civility.
I was thinking about this earlier today…. I made a comment on my sister-in-law’s Facebook page yesterday. She is a Republican and supports the Tea Party but I wouldn’t say (I don’t know) she is a birther. But essentially there was a Tea Party quote she put on her FB page and I said, “American political parties have more in common with each other than they care to admit.” I was supporting the quote and showing there was commonality among the Dems and Republicans. Anyway I was immediately “attacked” by her and her friends. They talked about the US following Greece down that socialist hole, that I should read “Atlas Shrugged” to see where the country was headed under Obama, that anyone who wanted what was best for the country would not vote for Obama, etc.
I couldn’t help but recall high school and the various cliques of people. Many of the students would pick on others, or (at best) agree with others who did the picking/bullying, but would not do anything to stop the harassment and bullying. I couldn’t help but compare that high school behavior with what these women were doing…. banding together to support each other over such a comment they did not like. A comment meant to show that Republicans and Democrats did share certain concerns. Yet these women wanted nothing to do with or even entertain the notion that they might have something in common with a Democrat. And I also remember back in HS that my sister-in-law was one of those who never stood up and said anything when others were picking on kids.
TO BE CLEAR…. I’m not saying that I was being picked on here. I am saying that these 45+ year old women have the same mentality as they did in high school…. which was/is to band together and go after those they disagree with.
I don’t mind people supporting each other, but it should be in a constructive way. Support should not bring out people’s worst instincts and pack mentality.
Though I did not feel picked on, I did feel that these women were not open to reason or seeing that Americans across political parties do have a lot in common. I felt that they had been fed a line (in this case, “Dems are bad, evil and the threat to the country”) and they were defending that line without much thought. And these aren’t “bad” women…. they’re college educated and (fundamentalist) Christians, going to Church more times a week than I go to bed. It just seems that they didn’t exhibit upstanding traits in high school, and 30 years later they’re still doing the same thing. And they elect people they believe have those values that they like.
And my opinion is that this article with its “attack” on liberals is the same thing. I don’t see anything in the article that even suggests that Democrats and Republicans share some of the same concerns.
As a liberal I am concerned about this SWAT and I’m glad the article was posted, but I think if the intent of the article is to truly gain support for something to be done about this SWAT tactic, then the article could have been less partisan. In my mind because the author choose to attack liberals he ceded the ground to make a strong case for supporting SWAT in a bipartisan fashion.
Stock, I don’t FB, twit, or whatever. (BTW: FB is no longer cool, the younger folks have moved on.)
I have a middle aged SIL that is a flaming liberal, so we could trade. However, I have experienced the tag team tactics that ladies employ when I meet my wife’s liberal family at gatherings. During the Bush days they creamed me, but these days I just ask them “how come I didn’t see you at the last peace rally”. Silence, and who wants coffee.
dduck, wait wait, FB? moved on? to where? Must know. have G-kids. lol
TO: “No one has stated nor implied that such behavior is tolerable.”
There are some comments above which do imply that it is relatively tolerable. To cite the clearest example: Hart said that the prank callers are not responsible for the danger they put their victims in. That equates this with common mischief. In other words, not that bad, merely annoying, or tolerable.
In the interest of not getting into a lengthy debate about who said what and what they meant and what it implies, I’ll stop there.
dduck, good point. I should have added to my comment that I don’t believe it’s just the conservatives that do this. I think it’s human nature. Who we are in high school (and our early years) is who we remain throughout our lives unless we make a real effort to change.
dr. e: http://www.broowaha.com/articles/13689/is-facebook-losing-the-key-teen-demographic