Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Notice that there wasn't much of an outcry when the city was locked down. People cooperated, and I'd imagine this tactic becomes more common if these things keep happening.<< It was an overreaction and something that terrorist organizations will take note of... It wouldn't be too difficult to place a couple IEDs in public in various cities and essentially shut down the United States for a long period of time... Besides if public safety was such a concern then why did they not shut the city down until days after the attack? It was a stupid call that will bite officials in the ass eventually if it becomes status quo. The general public may be OK with this reaction the first few times but then again, nobody whined about TNA right after 9/11 either but now most people hate that agency and the inconvenience that they cause.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 TNA should read TSA.... in reference to security checkpoints at airports.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Well, ahem, er, ah, David Ortiz made a little speech before the Red Sox game today. Proceed at your own risk? <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8LvIPWTGKg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...vIPWTGKg</a>
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "It was a stupid call that will bite officials in the ass eventually if it becomes status quo." Doubtful.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 "It was a stupid call that will bite officials in the ass eventually if it becomes status quo." Doubtful.<< So you think it's fine to shut a city down when there is a terrorist attack or another hunt for a suspect? At what point do we draw the line?
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Yeah, I think it's fine to shut a city down if the situation calls for it. I think it's a no brainer. If public safety officials have reason to believe the entire city is at risk until they develop further information, I think the lockdown should be required. It's obviously a vase by case basis, so why does a line need to be drawn? What are you going to say, sorry Chicago, you're to big, no lockdown for you, so if more people die, too bad? Hardly.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 What are you going to say, sorry Chicago, you're to big, no lockdown for you, so if more people die, too bad? Hardly.<< Considering more people die in Chicago than any other city they should lock the city down now, but you do make a decent point, I just think this might be setting a precedence and open up a Pandora's box that most Americans will not like long-term.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 First of all, let's all hope this doesn't become in any way routine. Second, if it does, you have to take it on a case by case basis. If something happens in, say, Atlanta - it doesn't mean they have to handle it just the way Boston did.
Originally Posted By hopemax Well, SPP, since you are a lawyer, although I know in an entirely different area than Constitutional rights... I admit to being uncomfortable when I was up that night and reading the reports of the man who was ordered to take off all his clothes in the middle of the street and was taken into custody naked. I get that it was in the middle of a very dangerous situation and they were worried about explosives, but are there no other procedures that can be followed that doesn't seem like such a gross violation of the 4th amendment? I know there are public need exceptions for things like checkpoints, but that ruling specifically stated minimal invasion of privacy, and I don't think we'd argue that strip searches in the middle of a public street is minimal invasion. The officials responding to the Boston PD may have been trustworthy, but it's always those less trustworthy places that worry me. Hopefully, this really is only a one time issue, but I used to live in Sheriff Joe's area, so...
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder I wondered about the naked part of that stop, too. Unless the exception they cite to is they suspected an underwear bomber, but if that's the case, some blue ribbon group is going to have to get together to decide just what protocol is going to be in these situations. Are they going to assign to each possible suspect the ability to use bombs like all the other terror suspects before them? Underwear, shoes, etc., or are they going to go by what they know about each individual case? It wouldn't surprise me to hear they'll be writing naked guy a big, fat check for his troubles. The other thing I'm curious about is this decision not to read the surviving bomber kid his Miranda rights. On the surface, I don't see the harm in reading him his rights and avoiding any problems, unless the reason they haven't yet is he's so medically out of it right now he wouldn't know what they're saying.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I wondered about that too. It seems to me it could be setting up a big fat hole for a clever lawyer to exploit if they don't read him his Miranda rights. And do they really think he doesn't know them? He's lived here and watched American TV for 10 years. How many times in a given WEEK must he have heard them on cop shows? Do they really think he might, if not read his rights, not know he has the right to remain silent, or to a lawyer? I'm sure he knows these things... yet if he's not read the rights, some lawyer could claim he didn't. From what I read, they're invoking a public safety exception and hope he blabs early and often. I could see him doing that perhaps if he was under the heavy influence of his older brother and was a semi-unwilling participant in the first place (and some have suggested that the older brother was the committed ideologue, with the younger brother not so but going along; who knows if that's true.) But not just because he wasn't read his rights, which he undoubtedly knows to begin with.
Originally Posted By hopemax I figured they would ask him whatever questions about imminent threats, then Mirandize him, and then ask him about everything else. I know with the shoe bomber, he blabbed to a nurse and a lawyer tried to get it thrown out saying it was pre-Miranda. So they might have specified the emergency exemption to avoid something like that. But clarification would be nice.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Now the mother is speaking out saying that she too believes that her sons are innocent and that there was a set up. <a href="http://tinyurl.com/cvebwhq" target="_blank">http://tinyurl.com/cvebwhq</a>
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt In short, the family should probably shut up until more information is released. They seem to be in complete denial that these guys were responsible for the events in Boston this week.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 In short, the family should probably shut up until more information is released. They seem to be in complete denial that these guys were responsible for the events in Boston this week.<< They can say whatever they want, it's well within their rights....In fact I am sure the CIA/FBI is interested in what they are saying as they try to see if the brothers worked alone or are part of a cell...
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt Well within their right but probably not in their best interest. Nothing they've said so far seems credible.
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Given the responses of the parents I get why their sons turned out like they did
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 How is their reaction any different to how Amanda Knox's family reacted after she was charged with murder? It's a natural reaction to initially believe in a loved ones innocence.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I agree, William. The first reaction of parents is often "He couldn't have broken into that car and gone joyriding!" - there's the natural parental protection mode, plus they may really believe their kid is not capable of such a thing. So what parent could think their kid capable of something like this?
