| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/20/2013 02:58:55 PM · #326 |
Originally posted by FourPointX:
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. |
Why not? Women are perfectly able to defend themselves, given the right training and tools, as are children to at least some degree. A recent case of a local 11 year old who scared off home intruders with her mom's little pink rifle comes to mind. A bit of martial arts training on top of some basic firearms training, and your family CAN defend themselves. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 03:04:09 PM · #327 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
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 |
So not reading him his rights is due to a "public safety exception"? Couldn't that apply to anybody that gets arrested for a violent act? |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 03:36:49 PM · #328 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Kelli:
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 |
So not reading him his rights is due to a "public safety exception"? Couldn't that apply to anybody that gets arrested for a violent act? |
No, because once a sole perpetrator is in custody, there is no longer a threat to the public. The rationale here is that, in the case of acts of terrorism, it is reasonable to consider that there may be as-yet unknown co-conspirators who may act again. The initial goal of the interrogation would be to see if there are any others so involved, or perhaps additional explosives planted for later detonation.
Not that I necessarily agree with that rationale ... ;-) |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 04:04:13 PM · #329 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
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. |
Why not? Women are perfectly able to defend themselves, given the right training and tools, as are children to at least some degree. A recent case of a local 11 year old who scared off home intruders with her mom's little pink rifle comes to mind. A bit of martial arts training on top of some basic firearms training, and your family CAN defend themselves. |
Just consider for the moment the idea that we're all not as perfect as you are at defending ourselves. I've had all that martial arts training, about 10 years worth, from the best martial artists in the world. One of the things I've learned from all that training is that in a real world fight, the best, most well armed fighter doesn't always win. The best fighter has better odds of winning, but once the fight gets going, anybody can get in a lucky shot. So, back to the original question. If your wife and kids are being held against their will by a terrorist, would you prefer that the police just take your wife at her word, or maybe, just maybe, actually check to make sure she's really alone and all right? |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 04:18:09 PM · #330 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by FourPointX:
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. |
Why not? Women are perfectly able to defend themselves, given the right training and tools, as are children to at least some degree. A recent case of a local 11 year old who scared off home intruders with her mom's little pink rifle comes to mind. A bit of martial arts training on top of some basic firearms training, and your family CAN defend themselves. |
Just consider for the moment the idea that we're all not as perfect as you are at defending ourselves. I've had all that martial arts training, about 10 years worth, from the best martial artists in the world. One of the things I've learned from all that training is that in a real world fight, the best, most well armed fighter doesn't always win. The best fighter has better odds of winning, but once the fight gets going, anybody can get in a lucky shot. So, back to the original question. If your wife and kids are being held against their will by a terrorist, would you prefer that the police just take your wife at her word, or maybe, just maybe, actually check to make sure she's really alone and all right? |
If the terrorist is in your house, with explosives, tell me, do you really want the cops rushing in anyway?
My opinion is that basically once they've taken control of your home and family, no number of cops is likely to unscrew you. Far better that you take the best odds you can get, and that's defending yourself. It's not perfect, you're quite right about that, but it's DAMNED sure better than nothing - otherwise, why did you waste 10 years of your life learning the skills you did? (frankly martial arts is less about fighting and more about personal development, but that's another story) - did you combine that with a good firearms course?
My point is that you can, and should, prepare to defend yourself, it's the rare person that will never have any use for those skills, although admittedly, it's more likely to be useful against a drunk fool than a determined terrorist, at some point there's no way to defend yourself, and fate/luck/circumstance simply will screw you.
I would prefer they take her at her word. If she's so incompetent as to not run out the door the moment the police show up if a terrorist is in the house, then that's on her. She has years of martial arts as well, and is able to handle a variety of weapons effectively. Frankly, I think she'd be the wrong girl to pick on, cute little 100lb terror she is.
Message edited by author 2013-04-20 16:20:57. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 04:48:21 PM · #331 |
Originally posted by Cory:
My opinion is that basically once they've taken control of your home and family, no number of cops is likely to unscrew you. |
And therein lies the difference between your belief and that of the majority. You would rather trust your ability to deal with a killer than with the police. My belief is otherwise shaped. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 05:45:06 PM · #332 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
My opinion is that basically once they've taken control of your home and family, no number of cops is likely to unscrew you. |
And therein lies the difference between your belief and that of the majority. You would rather trust your ability to deal with a killer than with the police. My belief is otherwise shaped. |
I think you misworded that accidentally. I would rather trust my ability to deal with a killer than to rely upon the police to deal with him for me. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 05:47:49 PM · #333 |
Originally posted by Cory:
...anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
That may be true in the USA, but I can guarantee you that in Canada if the Fire Marshall tells you to get out of a house, you had best do it... otherwise you will end up in jail.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 05:51:10 PM · #334 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
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 |
Link |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:00:32 PM · #335 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
...anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
That may be true in the USA, but I can guarantee you that in Canada if the Fire Marshall tells you to get out of a house, you had best do it... otherwise you will end up in jail.
Ray |
Get out is different than "We're coming in". |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:03:27 PM · #336 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
...anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
That may be true in the USA, but I can guarantee you that in Canada if the Fire Marshall tells you to get out of a house, you had best do it... otherwise you will end up in jail.
Ray |
Get out is different than "We're coming in". |
Has that even been verified? I thought I heard that the police were just looking around the exteriors and knocking on people's doors asking them some questions, not going inside conducting interior searches. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:06:31 PM · #337 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
...anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
That may be true in the USA, but I can guarantee you that in Canada if the Fire Marshall tells you to get out of a house, you had best do it... otherwise you will end up in jail.
Ray |
Get out is different than "We're coming in". |
Has that even been verified? I thought I heard that the police were just looking around the exteriors and knocking on people's doors asking them some questions, not going inside conducting interior searches. |
No idea. I certainly hope they were only doing exteriors and knock and talks. That's fine with me, and would be a welcome sweep. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:13:42 PM · #338 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Cory:
...anyone who violates this is guilty of home invasion. I simply can't believe all of you are ok with this. |
That may be true in the USA, but I can guarantee you that in Canada if the Fire Marshall tells you to get out of a house, you had best do it... otherwise you will end up in jail.
Ray |
Get out is different than "We're coming in". |
Actually, even if told they were coming in...there is diddle you could do about it in this country.
Ray |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:13:49 PM · #339 |
Originally posted by Cory:
If the terrorist is in your house, with explosives, tell me, do you really want the cops rushing in anyway?
|
Uh. Yes. Because if someone is in my house with explosives, then left to my own devices, I've already lost. It's time for reinforcements.
|
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:17:01 PM · #340 |
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Cory:
If the terrorist is in your house, with explosives, tell me, do you really want the cops rushing in anyway?
|
Uh. Yes. Because if someone is in my house with explosives, then left to my own devices, I've already lost. It's time for reinforcements. |
But if you have a gun then problem solved. |
|
|
|
04/20/2013 06:51:50 PM · #341 |
Originally posted by yanko:
Originally posted by Ann:
Originally posted by Cory:
If the terrorist is in your house, with explosives, tell me, do you really want the cops rushing in anyway?
|
Uh. Yes. Because if someone is in my house with explosives, then left to my own devices, I've already lost. It's time for reinforcements. |
But if you have a gun then problem solved. |
Nah, you're probably screwed no matter what. |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 09:56:21 AM · #342 |
Ok.
So here's a video of the process.
You'd be ok with being treated like this?
It's not like they politely ask you to leave the house.
Message edited by author 2013-04-21 10:10:34. |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:41:05 AM · #343 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
My opinion is that basically once they've taken control of your home and family, no number of cops is likely to unscrew you. |
And therein lies the difference between your belief and that of the majority. You would rather trust your ability to deal with a killer than with the police. My belief is otherwise shaped. |
I think you misworded that accidentally. I would rather trust my ability to deal with a killer than to rely upon the police to deal with him for me. |
not everyone is you, not everyone owns a gun, not everyone is capable to handle such a situation, yet the police are supposed to be able to figure out of those of us that are capable?
they need to assume that none of us can handle that situation so that those that cant can get their help.
Message edited by author 2013-04-21 10:46:35. |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:46:11 AM · #344 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok.
So here's a video of the process.
You'd be ok with being treated like this?
It's not like they politely ask you to leave the house. |
i don't see the problem. again put yourself in their shoes, they are trying to find someone who just blew up a bomb and tried to kill and injure people. let your guard down in you can get killed.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:46:16 AM · #345 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok.
So here's a video of the process.
You'd be ok with being treated like this?
It's not like they politely ask you to leave the house. |
Didn't seem unreasonably harsh to me, in the circumstances. But gee whiz, that was a HECK of a lot of people walking out of that house :-) |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:52:21 AM · #346 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
My opinion is that basically once they've taken control of your home and family, no number of cops is likely to unscrew you. |
And therein lies the difference between your belief and that of the majority. You would rather trust your ability to deal with a killer than with the police. My belief is otherwise shaped. |
I think you misworded that accidentally. I would rather trust my ability to deal with a killer than to rely upon the police to deal with him for me. |
not everyone is you, not everyone owns a gun, not everyone is capable to handle such a situation, yet the police are supposed to be able to figure out of those of us that are capable?
they need to assume that none of us can handle that situation so that those that cant can get their help. |
Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not.
|
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:53:40 AM · #347 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ok.
So here's a video of the process.
You'd be ok with being treated like this?
It's not like they politely ask you to leave the house. |
Didn't seem unreasonably harsh to me, in the circumstances. But gee whiz, that was a HECK of a lot of people walking out of that house :-) |
True! I wonder what the heck was going on in there?
|
|
|
|
04/21/2013 10:57:36 AM · #348 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not. |
really? everyone? what's the point of having the police then?
|
|
|
|
04/21/2013 11:00:20 AM · #349 |
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not. |
really? everyone? what's the point of having the police then? |
To take the report. |
|
|
|
04/21/2013 12:04:17 PM · #350 |
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by Mike:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by Cory:
My opinion is that basically once they've taken control of your home and family, no number of cops is likely to unscrew you. |
And therein lies the difference between your belief and that of the majority. You would rather trust your ability to deal with a killer than with the police. My belief is otherwise shaped. |
I think you misworded that accidentally. I would rather trust my ability to deal with a killer than to rely upon the police to deal with him for me. |
not everyone is you, not everyone owns a gun, not everyone is capable to handle such a situation, yet the police are supposed to be able to figure out of those of us that are capable?
they need to assume that none of us can handle that situation so that those that cant can get their help. |
Ahh, the lowest common denominator argument. I see where we diverge here - I think people should be responsible for themselves, you do not. |
Ownership of firearms is a right, not a requirement. Not owning a gun or not being able to defend your household against forced entry doesn't make you irresponsible, nor does it mean you belong to a lower subset of the citizenship. |
|
