| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2013 01:14:56 AM · #301 |
"They did not succeed"
"We refuse to be terrorized"
..
I don't think I agree with our president - once you've shut down the 20th largest city in the US for a day, and scrambled every form of enforcement for 72 hours, that's not refusing to be terrorized, in fact, it was a HUGE success for the terrorists.
Every time we fail to go about our daily business, they have won, every time we change our laws to 'protect' us from them, they have won, their goal is to disrupt our lives, and our society - and I'd say they did a pretty fine job of that this time around, wouldn't you? |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:14:59 AM · #302 |
Originally posted by Cory:
I don't think I agree with our president - once you've shut down the 20th largest city in the US for a day, and scrambled every form of enforcement for 72 hours, that's not refusing to be terrorized, in fact, it was a HUGE success for the terrorists. |
Wow Cory. You seem to find fault with anything, no matter how well it works. You would have chosen to do what if you were in charge?
The shelter in place order freed up a massive number of cops who would have been out dealing with day to day activities of police work. Instead they asked everyone to hunker down and put all their resources into catching one person. And they did. In a few hours. it worked, and tomorrow it will be back to normal.
Do you find that a greater victory for the terrorists the TSA, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, or the use of enhanced interrogation? If this was HHHHHUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE, what were those?
Originally posted by Cory:
White, pink, brown, red, yellow, African, American, Caucasian, Chinese, Arab, whatever. It's all immaterial really, but the part that did matter? Muslim. |
Yes, clearly this is the only thing that matter to a whole lot of people. It allows us to check a box and explain it all. So easy.
If only it was so simple to explain the Murray building bombing, or the slaughter at Sandy Hook. Those guys were crazy. I'll wait a few days and actually hear some evidence before I make up my mind.
Message edited by author 2013-04-20 02:26:39. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:31:00 AM · #303 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
I don't think I agree with our president - once you've shut down the 20th largest city in the US for a day, and scrambled every form of enforcement for 72 hours, that's not refusing to be terrorized, in fact, it was a HUGE success for the terrorists. |
Wow Cory. You seem to find fault with anything, no matter how well it works. You would have chosen to do what if you were in charge?
The shelter in place order freed up a massive number of cops who would have been out dealing with day to day activities of police work. Instead they asked everyone to hunker down and put all their resources into catching one person. And they did. In a few hours. it worked, and tomorrow it will be back to normal.
Do you find that a greater victory for the terrorists the TSA, the suspension of habeas corpus, warrantless wiretapping, or the use of enhanced interrogation? If this was HHHHHUUUUUGGGGGEEEEE, what were those?
Originally posted by Cory:
White, pink, brown, red, yellow, African, American, Caucasian, Chinese, Arab, whatever. It's all immaterial really, but the part that did matter? Muslim. |
Yes, clearly this is the only thing that matter to a whole lot of people. It allows us to check a box and explain it all. So easy.
If only it was so simple to explain the Murray building bombing, or the slaughter at Sandy Hook. Those guys were crazy. I'll wait a few days and actually hear some evidence before I make up my mind. |
Didn't say it was wrong, just the conclusion that we somehow "won".
It worked great, and was highly effective, but let me ask you this: do you think this will encourage or discourage further acts of a similar nature?
And you forgot the complete slaughter of the 4th amendment over the last 24 hours.
Message edited by author 2013-04-20 02:31:53. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:35:06 AM · #304 |
Did I hear the news correctly that the authorities would NOT be reading this man his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence.
I am not all that familiar with the "Public Safety Exception" alluded to in this instance, but would this not possibly have a negative during trial?
I would hate to see this man walk due to a technicality.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:38:52 AM · #305 |
Originally posted by Cory:
...And you forgot the complete slaughter of the 4th amendment over the last 24 hours. |
Surely you are NOT suggesting that the searches were unreasonable?
Don't know about you my friend, but if someone in authority was searching for a terrorist and the thought he was hiding say in my garage, I would gladly let them look for him... but then again, I don't share your distrust for authority.
Ray
|
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:46:13 AM · #306 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
...And you forgot the complete slaughter of the 4th amendment over the last 24 hours. |
Surely you are NOT suggesting that the searches were unreasonable?
Don't know about you my friend, but if someone in authority was searching for a terrorist and the thought he was hiding say in my garage, I would gladly let them look for him... but then again, I don't share your distrust for authority.
Ray |
I'll sweep my own house, thanks. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 04:15:06 AM · #307 |
He's probably halfway to Egypt as we speak.
Oh it's my birthday today, I wanted a <3 from Cory...
Message edited by author 2013-04-20 04:15:34. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 04:53:51 AM · #308 |
Originally posted by JH:
He's probably halfway to Egypt as we speak.
Oh it's my birthday today, I wanted a <3 from Cory... |
Hey hey! Happy birthday!
<3 ya bro! :D |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 07:19:05 AM · #309 |
What worries me more and more is just like with the DC sniper if it wasn't for the tips from civilians the authorities would never catch these guys.
Either the bad guys screw up or the cops get a tip.
If the cops never got a call last night this kid would have bled to death in some strangers boat.
I know these cops put them self in harms way and they are very brave BUT I think they should be applauding the citizens of the Boston area not themselves. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 08:02:38 AM · #310 |
Few thoughts. I don't disagree with the president. This country wont stand for the daily terrorism that other countries face. The loss to the lifestyle we are accustomed to is too great. We shut down an entire city o catch the guy. I think that speaks volumes to the lengths we will go, there was no way this guy was getting away, it was limiting his ability to kill anyone while doing so.
As far as unreasonable searches... public safety is a weird thing and at this moment it was warranted. You had a guy who killed and continued to kill to elude capture. They set out to catch him and put in the means to do so. They even gave back those rights even though they hadn't caught him because they knew they couldnt keep the city or town locked down forever. That isn't a erosion of rights or slaughtering of the amendments, its common sense. Its not unreasonable search and seizure unless you resist.
Not reading his Miranda rights does concern me. Its up to the courts to decide his guilt. Not the police. Even if the evidence is overwhelming. The police apprehend and provide their testimony at the trial, they don't get to be the judge and jury.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2013 08:43:02 AM · #311 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Few thoughts. I don't disagree with the president. This country wont stand for the daily terrorism that other countries face. The loss to the lifestyle we are accustomed to is too great. We shut down an entire city o catch the guy. I think that speaks volumes to the lengths we will go, there was no way this guy was getting away, it was limiting his ability to kill anyone while doing so.
As far as unreasonable searches... public safety is a weird thing and at this moment it was warranted. You had a guy who killed and continued to kill to elude capture. They set out to catch him and put in the means to do so. They even gave back those rights even though they hadn't caught him because they knew they couldnt keep the city or town locked down forever. That isn't a erosion of rights or slaughtering of the amendments, its common sense. Its not unreasonable search and seizure unless you resist.
Not reading his Miranda rights does concern me. Its up to the courts to decide his guilt. Not the police. Even if the evidence is overwhelming. The police apprehend and provide their testimony at the trial, they don't get to be the judge and jury. |
+1
We didn't shut things down because everyone was afraid to go out of their doors. Things were shut down so police could do what they needed to do easier and unencumbered. Together we did what needed to be done.
And it is a "together" thing more and more. The police can only do so much. It's the public that knows the areas, that knows what looks difference and out of place. Look how many police were brought in to search the area, but still the whole thing wasn't searched. They can only do so much, and for their safety and the safety of the civilians, you can only work so fast. There's just to many people and not enough law enforcement -- and now with cell phone videos and photos the public can be so much more help (and hinderance). The sheer amount of data to search through is unreal.
I have never seen anything like this before. It was one day in the life. I would have gladly shut down one day of my life to catch someone who did something so horrendous and life changing to so many people. Those families who have to deal with the aftermath of loss of loved ones, loss of limbs, and the horror that will take a long time to fade -- yes. I could deal with sheltering and having my house searched to help give closure to those families and to take those people off the streets.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2013 09:35:37 AM · #312 |
Interesting to read that the FBI had previously picked up the older brother for questioning based on a tip/ information from some foreign country several yours back.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2013 09:49:58 AM · #313 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Did I hear the news correctly that the authorities would NOT be reading this man his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence.
I am not all that familiar with the "Public Safety Exception" alluded to in this instance, but would this not possibly have a negative during trial?
I would hate to see this man walk due to a technicality.
Ray |
Yes, you heard it correctly. I'm assuming he'll be on his way to Cuba as soon as it's safe for him to leave the hospital (though it's only a guess). I assume you didn't see my last post. I don't think you need to worry about him walking anywhere.
Previously posted: From NBC... Tsarnaev will be questioned by a federal team called the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which includes officials of the FBI, CIA, and Defense Department, an Obama administration official said.
Message edited by author 2013-04-20 09:53:02. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 12:09:47 PM · #314 |
Originally posted by nygold:
What worries me more and more is just like with the DC sniper if it wasn't for the tips from civilians the authorities would never catch these guys.
Either the bad guys screw up or the cops get a tip.
If the cops never got a call last night this kid would have bled to death in some strangers boat.
I know these cops put them self in harms way and they are very brave BUT I think they should be applauding the citizens of the Boston area not themselves. |
A rather simplistic view of issues of this nature.
There are a lot of things that happen in the background that never make the news that are very important in the realm of security, and yes you are absolutely right that input from the general population is a must in solving crimes.
As far as applauding the population, they did that very thing after that young man was apprehended... maybe it was not as widespread as some other portions of the news.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 12:16:18 PM · #315 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Did I hear the news correctly that the authorities would NOT be reading this man his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence.
I am not all that familiar with the "Public Safety Exception" alluded to in this instance, but would this not possibly have a negative during trial?
I would hate to see this man walk due to a technicality.
Ray |
Yes, you heard it correctly. I'm assuming he'll be on his way to Cuba as soon as it's safe for him to leave the hospital (though it's only a guess). I assume you didn't see my last post. I don't think you need to worry about him walking anywhere.
Previously posted: From NBC... Tsarnaev will be questioned by a federal team called the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which includes officials of the FBI, CIA, and Defense Department, an Obama administration official said. |
Oh but I did read your last post, but to me there exists a monumental amount of difference between the interrogation process in an effort to ferret out information and the ability to use this information in a subsequent trial.
In a normal trial, because of the exclusionary nature of Miranda, failure to provide same to the person being interrogated would result in all information gathered not being admissible in court, a factor which would render prosecution almost impossible.
My question was directed specifically at that aspect of the questioning and whether the the "Public Safety Exception" would enable the introduction of such materials in court proceedings.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 12:40:22 PM · #316 |
Originally posted by Mike:
.. Its not unreasonable search and seizure unless you resist.
... |
Do you work for them? Sounds just like something you'd hear a PR guy say. :) |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 12:55:32 PM · #317 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
.. Its not unreasonable search and seizure unless you resist.
... |
Do you work for them? Sounds just like something you'd hear a PR guy say. :) |
the police were doing their job protecting the public, making sure no families were being held hostage against their will. Do you seriously consider this a violation of our rights?
i be upset if they didn't do this because the 4th amendment prohibited it.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2013 01:09:47 PM · #318 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
.. Its not unreasonable search and seizure unless you resist.
... |
Do you work for them? Sounds just like something you'd hear a PR guy say. :) |
the police were doing their job protecting the public, making sure no families were being held hostage against their will. Do you seriously consider this a violation of our rights?
i be upset if they didn't do this because the 4th amendment prohibited it. |
Once I've answered the door, and assured you my house is clear, that should be enough, I don't give a damn who you're chasing.
Besides, what if I didn't answer the door? Are they then OK to just bust it down? Would that be OK too Mike? |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 01:37:12 PM · #319 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Once I've answered the door, and assured you my house is clear, that should be enough, I don't give a damn who you're chasing.
|
Cory think about this statement dude. Do you really think whomever answers the door's assurance their house is clear is good enough for a manhunt of this scope, or of any scope for that matter? would you feel they had done their job correctly if you heard they just did a door to door "knock and check"?
as far as busting the door down, how else are they to clear a house where no one answers, in the immediate vicinity where a suspect has gone to ground? not trying to debate you on this, really interested in hearing your thoughts. it seems logical to me. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 01:41:45 PM · #320 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by Cory:
Once I've answered the door, and assured you my house is clear, that should be enough, I don't give a damn who you're chasing.
|
Cory think about this statement dude. Do you really think whomever answers the door's assurance their house is clear is good enough for a manhunt of this scope, or of any scope for that matter? would you feel they had done their job correctly if you heard they just did a door to door "knock and check"?
as far as busting the door down, how else are they to clear a house where no one answers, in the immediate vicinity where a suspect has gone to ground? not trying to debate you on this, really interested in hearing your thoughts. it seems logical to me. |
I would consider the sanctity of my home violated. My rule is simple, unless you are invited into my home you need to stay out of it, anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 01:49:33 PM · #321 |
| your stance is understandable. but lets say they accept your word at the door "my house is clear" how does that account for a family being held against their will? |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 01:49:59 PM · #322 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
Originally posted by Cory:
Once I've answered the door, and assured you my house is clear, that should be enough, I don't give a damn who you're chasing.
|
Cory think about this statement dude. Do you really think whomever answers the door's assurance their house is clear is good enough for a manhunt of this scope, or of any scope for that matter? would you feel they had done their job correctly if you heard they just did a door to door "knock and check"?
as far as busting the door down, how else are they to clear a house where no one answers, in the immediate vicinity where a suspect has gone to ground? not trying to debate you on this, really interested in hearing your thoughts. it seems logical to me. |
I would consider the sanctity of my home violated. My rule is simple, unless you are invited into my home you need to stay out of it, anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
To be fair it would be a great movie, the terrorist squatting in a house for years because he didn't answer the door when the police came. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:36:37 PM · #323 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
your stance is understandable. but lets say they accept your word at the door "my house is clear" how does that account for a family being held against their will? |
It's your responsibility to protect yourself, and your family. To rely upon another to do so is madness.
So, how many doors did they break down in Boston yesterday? What did they do when faced with a closed door? Did they really break them down? Or did they just move on? |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:45:54 PM · #324 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Kelli:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Did I hear the news correctly that the authorities would NOT be reading this man his Miranda rights, because the authorities would be invoking the public safety exception in order to question him extensively about other potential explosive devices or accomplices and to try to gain intelligence.
I am not all that familiar with the "Public Safety Exception" alluded to in this instance, but would this not possibly have a negative during trial?
I would hate to see this man walk due to a technicality.
Ray |
Yes, you heard it correctly. I'm assuming he'll be on his way to Cuba as soon as it's safe for him to leave the hospital (though it's only a guess). I assume you didn't see my last post. I don't think you need to worry about him walking anywhere.
Previously posted: From NBC... Tsarnaev will be questioned by a federal team called the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, which includes officials of the FBI, CIA, and Defense Department, an Obama administration official said. |
Oh but I did read your last post, but to me there exists a monumental amount of difference between the interrogation process in an effort to ferret out information and the ability to use this information in a subsequent trial.
In a normal trial, because of the exclusionary nature of Miranda, failure to provide same to the person being interrogated would result in all information gathered not being admissible in court, a factor which would render prosecution almost impossible.
My question was directed specifically at that aspect of the questioning and whether the the "Public Safety Exception" would enable the introduction of such materials in court proceedings.
Ray |
The rule waiving the Miranda warning does not set a precise limit on how long a suspect can be interrogated before being advised of his rights, but it likely buys authorities no more than 48 hours.
During that time Tsarnaev, 19, will be questioned by a federal government team called the High Value Detainee Interrogation Group, consisting of officials of the FBI, CIA and Defense Department. Though he will not have a lawyer present, any statements he makes during the questioning will be admissible in court.
From here...//openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/20/17832252-whats-next-the-interrogation-of-the-boston-bombing-suspect?lite |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 02:50:55 PM · #325 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
your stance is understandable. but lets say they accept your word at the door "my house is clear" how does that account for a family being held against their will? |
It's your responsibility to protect yourself, and your family. To rely upon another to do so is madness.
So, how many doors did they break down in Boston yesterday? What did they do when faced with a closed door? Did they really break them down? Or did they just move on? |
while i agree with you in the context of YOUR home, you're not considering all possibilities. my wife and children spend many hours home without a male presence while i'm working, and i couldn't expect her to defend my home from an armed assailant. much less my children when they are home alone. |
|
