Terrorism at the Boston Marathon?

Canon EF 28-135mm f/3.5-5.6 IS USM

04/22/2013 03:47:43 PM · #401

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by Cory:
Now THOSE guys are proper first responders!

Agreed. It seems very rational to me, for smaller towns at least. To some extent, some of our local towns on Cape are starting to operate this way, although there is resistance from some quarters.

That would save these small towns alot of money..I bet the unions hate it

of course the unions hate it.

They have their own union.

of course they do, how else would they expect to rape the public of funds that would otherwise be saved.

You think it better that employees get screwed?

It may be that not every union contract is fiscally responsible, but without unions we'd be lacking certain things we're used to, like weekends, 8-hour workday, workplace safety, sick leave, vacation, holidays ... besides, why not blame those who agreed to the terms and pay out the money? Don't you ask for for the highest pay you can get?

"Oh, no sir -- you better pay me less and make sure the shareholders get their dividends ..." Riigghhttt ...

funny. i get all that stuff and im not in a union...

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

04/22/2013 03:51:17 PM · #402

Originally posted by Mike:

funny. i get all that stuff and im not in a union...

No, you get all that stuff because of the unions that came long before you. Without them, who knows what the workplace would look like today.

jmritz

Fujifilm X30

Custom Made Pinhole

04/22/2013 03:59:27 PM · #403

Originally posted by GeneralE:

We're in the money! Click on this story, Data shift to lift US economy 3%

04/22/2013 04:01:40 PM · #404

Originally posted by Kelli:

Originally posted by Mike:

funny. i get all that stuff and im not in a union...

No, you get all that stuff because of the unions that came long before you. Without them, who knows what the workplace would look like today.

im not saying they didn't at one time serve a purpose, they did, before OSHA and all the HR regulations etc. etc... now they are really only serving a political purpose.

04/22/2013 04:02:25 PM · #405

Ray:

here is your answer:

//www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/dershowitz_authorities_will_regret_not_reading_boston_bomber_miranda_rights.html

the lack Miranda reading may not allow the feds to get the death penalty.

Message edited by author 2013-04-22 16:24:42.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/22/2013 06:06:03 PM · #406

Originally posted by Mike:

Thanks a bunch Mike.

My concern in this regard was that any information they obtained that was not linked to the ferreting out of information regarding other possible IED's might not be admissible due to the fact that he was not read his rights.

I will watch this with interest.

Thanks again,

Ray

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

04/22/2013 06:56:46 PM · #407

there is sufficient proof that he set off the bomb, by why he did it will be the basis of whether he gets the death penalty or not. that part might be hard to prove without any information they got without reading the Miranda rights.

Message edited by author 2013-04-22 18:57:27.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

04/22/2013 11:47:34 PM · #408

Originally posted by Mike:

It would be an interesting question, because the arrested grew up as a normal American and probably watched a steady diet of cop shows. The first time I heard the Miranda warning it sounded complex, but after years of hearing it on TV I can recite it without thinking.I would bet it is better known by the average American than the Lord's Prayer or any snippet of Americana from the Gettysburg address to the preamble of the Constitution. Acting without knowledge of Miranda rights is one thing, but if you know them and are not read them, can you act out of ignorance ?

BTW, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev will be tried in the US, under civilian law. Given how Obama has failed to live up to his promise to close Guantanamo, and his liberal use of drones, I am pleasantly surprised he stood his ground on this one.

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/23/2013 07:28:40 AM · #409

i guess it depends on how well he lawyers up.

and he should be tried under civilian law, he was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil.

bohemka

Nikon D700

04/23/2013 09:08:43 AM · #410

Originally posted by Mike:

i guess it depends on how well he lawyers up.

He'll be represented by public defender.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/23/2013 07:40:48 PM · #411

Originally posted by Mike:

i guess it depends on how well he lawyers up.

and he should be tried under civilian law, he was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil.

Is that a fact... I was under the impression that he had not yet been granted citizenship. His brother was, but I thought the younger wasn't.

Ray

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/23/2013 07:47:58 PM · #412

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:
i guess it depends on how well he lawyers up.

and he should be tried under civilian law, he was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil.

Is that a fact... I was under the impression that he had not yet been granted citizenship. His brother was, but I thought the younger wasn't.

Ray

I actually thought it was the other way around. His brother hadn't received citizenship, but the younger had, in September 2012.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

04/23/2013 07:52:22 PM · #413

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:
i guess it depends on how well he lawyers up.

and he should be tried under civilian law, he was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil.

Is that a fact... I was under the impression that he had not yet been granted citizenship. His brother was, but I thought the younger wasn't.

Ray

I actually thought it was the other way around. His brother hadn't received citizenship, but the younger had, in September 2012.

Just checked it and you are right. I see that the former US Attorney wants to have his citizenship revoked.

Ray

bohemka

Nikon D700

Sigma 12-24mm f/4.5-5.6 EX Aspherical DG HSM for Nikon

04/23/2013 07:56:17 PM · #414

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by bohemka:

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Mike:
i guess it depends on how well he lawyers up.

and he should be tried under civilian law, he was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil.

Is that a fact... I was under the impression that he had not yet been granted citizenship. His brother was, but I thought the younger wasn't.

Ray

I actually thought it was the other way around. His brother hadn't received citizenship, but the younger had, in September 2012.

Just checked it and you are right. I see that the former US Attorney wants to have his citizenship revoked.

Ray

Sheesh. And the precedent that would set.

I'm happy to see him tried as a citizen. If nothing else, it might provide greater visibility into the proceedings.

blindjustice

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

04/25/2013 08:20:40 AM · #415

An interesting read regarding the Boston incident and Constitutional law...

04/25/2013 09:14:46 AM · #416

Originally posted by blindjustice:

An interesting read regarding the Boston incident and Constitutional law...

The author of that article is a liberal hypocrit. I refer to the last paragraph of the article. He says that he is for repeal of the 2nd amendment...but he will bleed for the fourth. He calls this a choice. That is no choice. He has told me that the constitution is crap except for the parts that are convienient. I will bleed (and I have) for every word in the document that we call the constitution.

04/25/2013 11:58:01 AM · #417

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by blindjustice:
An interesting read regarding the Boston incident and Constitutional law...

The author of that article is a liberal hypocrit. I refer to the last paragraph of the article. He says that he is for repeal of the 2nd amendment...but he will bleed for the fourth. He calls this a choice. That is no choice. He has told me that the constitution is crap except for the parts that are convienient. I will bleed (and I have) for every word in the document that we call the constitution.

No he says the Constitution is a living, breathing set of commitments we must interpret over and over again in light of changing needs and circumstances.

just because he wants to repeal the second amendment doesn't make him a liberal. you need to stop throwing that term around so loosely, what exactly is a liberal anyways, someone who disagrees with you on an issue? liberals are not going to be the death of America and the sooner we get past the partisan crap, the better.

What the author is doing is questioning if our rights were infringed and makes a good case, he was exercising yet another right, his right to question, we all ought to be doing more questioning. The politicians are preying on our fears an emotions and we need to remain sane through all this else we get the patriot act v2.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/25/2013 12:16:05 PM · #418

Originally posted by Mike:

What the author is doing is questioning if our rights were infringed and makes a good case, he was exercising yet another right, his right to question, we all ought to be doing more questioning. The politicians are preying on our fears an emotions and we need to remain sane through all this else we get the patriot act v2.

I agree what point he was trying to make...was the 4th amendment infringed on....However he openly stated that it is ok to infringe on the second amendment rights. So how can you infringe on one right and not another...

I also agree that the door to door search in Boston was an infringement on the search and seasure without probable cause.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

04/25/2013 12:43:19 PM · #419

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

I also agree that the door to door search in Boston was an infringement on the search and seasure without probable cause.

The possibility that the (armed) perpetrator of an act of terrorism might be hiding out there isn't "probable cause"?

You do realize that you can't defend "every word" of the Constitution, since some of them contradict (negate, repeal) each other ...

Message edited by author 2013-04-25 12:43:34.

04/25/2013 12:53:48 PM · #420

Originally posted by cowboy221977:

Originally posted by Mike:
What the author is doing is questioning if our rights were infringed and makes a good case, he was exercising yet another right, his right to question, we all ought to be doing more questioning. The politicians are preying on our fears an emotions and we need to remain sane through all this else we get the patriot act v2.

I agree what point he was trying to make...was the 4th amendment infringed on....However he openly stated that it is ok to infringe on the second amendment rights. So how can you infringe on one right and not another...

I also agree that the door to door search in Boston was an infringement on the search and seizure without probable cause.

the author isn't saying the second should be infringed on but repealed.

04/25/2013 12:56:53 PM · #421

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I also agree that the door to door search in Boston was an infringement on the search and seasure without probable cause.

The possibility that the (armed) perpetrator of an act of terrorism might be hiding out there isn't "probable cause"?

that's the question here. was this an act of terrorism and was there probable cause and did the response violate rights?

i welcome the discussion although i am torn on whether this was a violation of rights. part of me think it was a violation but part of me realizes the authorities have a duty to protect the public.

Canon EF 85mm f/1.2L II USM

04/25/2013 01:09:10 PM · #422

Originally posted by Mike:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by cowboy221977:
I also agree that the door to door search in Boston was an infringement on the search and seasure without probable cause.

The possibility that the (armed) perpetrator of an act of terrorism might be hiding out there isn't "probable cause"?

that's the question here. was this an act of terrorism and was there probable cause and did the response violate rights?

i welcome the discussion although i am torn on whether this was a violation of rights. part of me think it was a violation but part of me realizes the authorities have a duty to protect the public.

This is definately in a grey area of the law. Police do not have the right to enter a house "to search" unless there is probable cause.(probable cause is also a grey area)....Granted there was a madman (terrorist) somewhere in the neighborhood, possibly. But if there was not probable cause that the terrorist was in an individual house, do the police have the right to enter and search that dwelling without a warrant.

Cory

Canon EOS-1D Mark IV

04/25/2013 01:18:21 PM · #423

Originally posted by Mike:

Well, let's carry this a bit further.

Let's say there was a series of calls from your neighborhood, which were intercepted and determined to present a potential threat because of the content of the conversations. This was a cell phone, so there's no address, just a zone that has been triangulated.

Now, do you support them searching every house, and questioning every individual in that area? This IS how this precedent will be used eventually, so you need to decide now if that scenario sounds OK to you - it's most certainly not acceptable in my view.

ETA: Remember - searching every house means armed response teams forcefully and aggressively removing residents from their homes, pointing guns in their faces, handling them just a little roughly, and frisking them, and then subjecting them to a hostile interview process to determine if they are the unknown threat - then searching through their homes, outbuildings and vehicles to see if any evidence turns up that might indicate a threat.

Of course, the police would LOVE this, since there would also be a huge impact on crime through 'incidental' discoveries of other illegal activities.

Some of you thought I was being silly when I suggested that gun restrictions and higher security would lead to bombs becoming more popular. I fear we will see more of this type of attack (for various reasons), in the future, it seems like this may have been the new Columbine to me, as these two fools have now demonstrated exactly how this 'should' be done, so all the copycats that have been working off of Columbine for a model now have new inspiration. I hope I'm wrong about that, and I hope I'm wrong about the way this precedent will be used as well. Sadly, I suspect I'm far more right than I want to be.

Message edited by author 2013-04-25 13:29:37.

04/25/2013 01:26:44 PM · #424

I still think it is a grey area in the law. I agree with Cory, this will be viewed as a precedent and it will start happening more and more. Give them an inch and they'll take 10 miles.