2013 Boston Marathon

[The Sybian]

There's nothing new about what Barstoolsports is doing, not at all. It's "branding a disaster". And these are the guys that slapped their URL over a piece of home video that showed two terrorists fighting it out with the cops; classy move that, don't you think?

That site doesn't say "all proceeds" it just says "proceeds will go to...". So you give money to them, "get" to wear their advertising, so they can in turn donate some of that cash to a cause of their choosing in the city (for maximum publicity, doubtlessly), for which they will get full credit, not you, so they look like the caring community philanthropists (which is yet more self-serving cynical advertising).

I avoid that shit like the plague.

There are many organizations that need assistance. Clinics, Emergency Social Services (which is seriously underfunded), those personally affected, the families, on and on and on. These are the people that truly need their community's citizens to step up.

Two types of people donate in times of crises. Those who quietly and directly do so because they are decent people who simply give a damn. And then there is the type that want a t-shirt that proclaims to the world "Look at me! I donated! Me! Me! Look at how awesome I am!"

At the bottom of all that are the people who sell those t-shirts, who frame tragedy as an opportunity.

Anyone wishing to aid those in need should know that they can do so directly. I find what Barstoolsports is doing to be completely deplorable, hiding behind social benevolence to further their own business. Your mileage may vary.

100% behind everything in this post, but felt the need to add that wearing this shirt is more about promoting a douchey "Bro" website and a new slogan of the douchiest team in professional sports than it is about supporting victims of a tragedy. I'm also getting a little jaded by all of the Boston tough guy bullshit I'm seeing third hand through Facebook and other sites. Did the people of Oklahoma City strut around about how tough they were after the Murrah Building bombing? Or compare Al-Qaeda to a punk 19 yo kid?

[garyclark]

I generally agree with Syb's sentiment. But we do know people whose friends/relatives were injured, and a couple who are two degrees of separation from one of the dead. So I think there's something to be said for them pulling through this.

That being said, if you don't fall into that group, outside of it being a strange experience (the unknown being the biggest fear), most Bostonians should not have felt in significant danger, or like they overcame anything of significant substance. The height of my fear was when they called off the manhunt and lifted the shelter-at-home order. This was because they said they had searched a 20-block radius around the shooting scene house-by-house and hadn't found the guy. And that they were pretty sure he was traveling by foot. And I live around 24 blocks away, so ...

Having lived through the DC sniper experience, this was different, but probably just about the same level of fear. Even though I moved out of Manhattan in August of 2001, and was safely in Baltimore during the attacks, that was a heluva lot scarier than this.

That being said, I do like to assimilate into a culture when I move (see my previous handle on this site for evidence), so I'm not totally averse to a Boston Strong t-shirt. Also, I like collecting t-shirts from different points in my life. And this one is pretty memorable. But it sure as hell won't be from that website.

[Joe K]

That being said, if you don't fall into that group, outside of it being a strange experience (the unknown being the biggest fear), most Bostonians should not have felt in significant danger, or like they overcame anything of significant substance.

I completely agree with this. I was lucky enough to not have anyone close to me hurt, so I certainly don't feel like I "overcame" anything this past week.

Before I moved to Boston, I lived in Cambridge for a few years and it is more than a little strange to me that the brothers were living by Inman Square. I'm quite fond of that neighborhood, and it was a little jarring to see it get the CNN treatment this weekend.

[Johnnie]

See that's what I had figured asking the question. They are capitalizing off of Big Papi's comment first, the victims second. Whatever Barstool can do to be overt about Boston is the thing here.

In 5 years, if I were to wear that shirt, the first thing someone's going to look at that and think is "Why does this d-bag have to wear a T-shirt with that wording on it?" Someone will probably note that it's expletive (and it is) and then question why I'm wearing it. The answer will then be "Well, remember 5 years ago when the Boston Marathon had a bombing and a beloved Red Sox hitter swore on national TV some days after after the bombing suspect was caught? Well, this is what he said under a moment of emotion. The FCC was cool with it." The reaction will be "So that's how you honor the victims of a disgusting attack? With that? Really?" then I'll realize I'm 34 and not that Bostonian anymore.

[Nonlinear FC]

I'm not happy that I'm literally a couple of blocks outside the area where they just finished doing a house-by-house search, and this guy is fleeing by foot ... Just sayin'.

Doesn't Ed Romero live in Watertown? Anyone heard from him? As a Boston resident, I thought the discussion between Howard and AB/Nonlinear earlier in this thread about whether locking down the entire area was an overreaction was interesting. I have mixed feelings. I think the MBTA shutdown and driving ban in Watertown made sense, as that made it a lot harder for Tsarnaev to elude the police. But I'm not sure the broader, region-wide shutdown was necessary. The economic costs of having basically every business in Boston closed for a day are substantial, and I also worry about the psychological implications on the region--and nation as a whole--of taking such drastic measures. This was obviously a very tragic and difficult week for Boston, but I think it's problematic to have the specter of terrorism play as large a role in the shaping of U.S. policy as it has for the last 12 years. The Miranda issue was discussed earlier in this thread, and I'm sure that there will be other attempts to use these events to justify restrictions on immigration and civil liberties. I've already seen elected officials call for Tsarnaev to be tortured and/or denied counsel. I wish I could say that I have confidence in Obama not to overreact, but frankly, I don't.

And in hindsight, knowing now that they had a very good idea of exactly where he was... Completely agree with all of this. Lock down Watertown, but the rest of the city/region? Major over reaction imo.

I was under the impression that they really didn't know where he was (based on the media's "reporting.")

[howard]

The psychological implications and reactions of the populous are my concern and my point of reference in watching this episode unfold. Cops and high officials will make their choices, and they will make mistakes. (Although I'd take a couple of bloodhounds over a bunch of armored personnel carriers in this manhunt, but I'm old-school like that.)

It is this ongoing change in the attitude of American society that matters. We can vary tremendously in our personal view of this process, how we define, describe and analyze the implications.

[Shirley]

Yeah, bloodhounds. It's funny, we have so much high tech gadgetry, yet they had no idea where this kid went, within minutes of his fleeing. Do no police forces have tracking dogs anymore? It seems like that would have been a good idea and possibly could have ended this thing hours earlier.

[Nonlinear FC]

Yeah, bloodhounds. It's funny, we have so much high tech gadgetry, yet they had no idea where this kid went, within minutes of his fleeing. Do no police forces have tracking dogs anymore? It seems like that would have been a good idea and possibly could have ended this thing hours earlier.

That's actually a really good/fascinating point. Apparently this kid was bleeding everydamnwhere, probably the easiest gig for a moderately trained bloodhound in the history of manhunts.

[Gunpowder]

I don't think you're a douchebag for buying the shirt, Johnnie. If someone in 5 years is actually offended, you'll know that you don't really want to converse with them on a regular basis anyway.

EDIT: That doesn't mean I don't agree with the earlier posts. I generally hate stuff like Toby Keith coming out with a 9/11 song, etc., but I don't necessarily think everyone who buys the shirt is an idiot or anything. If you are aware of what you are doing, then whatevs.

[sancarlos]

Canada thwarts planned major terrorist attack on passenger rail.

[howard]

That is amazing. Who knew there was rail service between NYC and Toronto?

[Scottie]

That is amazing. Who knew there was rail service between NYC and Toronto?

When I first heard about this as "breaking news" this morning, in one of those reports that tells you something is happening but not what is happening, I wondered what the target might be. A rail line? That is surprising. Wonder why. Lowest level of security, maybe?

[govmentchedda]

I love that the article includes, "Canada's two biggest cities" after listing Toronto and Montreal. Are they writing this article for aliens?

[howard]

This article helped me clarify my thinking about the city-wide shut down. Because there were good reasons for the decision to tell residents over a wide area to stay home and lock the doors. And my unease is a reaction to the symptom, not the disease processes.

http://www.ianwelsh.net/boston-is-the-e ... /#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Let’s examine why the decision was made.

The first part of it was that a suspect was on the loose who had explosives. He had shown a willingness to use them, had shown he was more than willing (and capable) of fighting it out with the police. If a bomber is on the loose basic doctrine is to deny the bomber targets. Large groups of people are targets.

Reason #2 is the basic doctrine of fighting guerillas, which is in effect what he was: isolate, concentrate, annihilate. In regular, every day Boston, there are crowds he could meld in to. With almost no one on the streets, it was much easier for him to be seen, at least in principle. In practice, he still just walked past the police cordon. Let’s cover that.

Reason #3 is something a lot of people don’t want to hear: your police state are incompetent. They are young and stupid, or they are Iraqi or Afghan veterans (read: burn out cases). They have essentially no fire discipline. When Dorner, the cop killer, a large African American was on the loose, there was an incident where a civilian who didn’t look anything like him was blown away by a twitchy cop.

The police have become dependent on overwhelming force. Anyone who was involved in Occupy is familiar with what I mean: they generally went after Occupy with far larger numbers of cops than the protestors had protestors. When arresting a drunk they use multiple cars. After the bombing they had large numbers of police just stand around as a matter of “confidence” building and to “deter” the bombers. They were driving down streets in motorcycle columns, evenly spaced. If the bombers had been competent, all they were doing was either providing targets (the police) or telling the bombers (who still had more explosives) where not to hit, if they didn’t want to go for cops.

So, you had cops with extremely weak fire discipline and who aren’t particularly competent. You had a suspect who probably still had bombs. To keep civilians safe, at that point, meant keeping them off the street. And by safe, we mean from both police and bombers.

This decision is at the end of a chain of decisions about the composition and training of the police. It is at the end of a societal decision about the incentives for prosecutors and the FBI.

……

Yes, this means that smart, competent people watching this spectacle, along with the Dorner episode now know how easy it would be to shut down major metropolitan centers. Ten competent people could shut down the entire Northeastern metropolitan complex from Boston to NYC.

My problem, much more than the decision, is 1) the decision is in part motivated by the doctrine of overwhelming police force; and 2) that people are so quick to passively say, 'ok, whatever you say; I'll follow your instructions'. Even if that was the rational response this time, it is a bad habit, trusting cops and mayors. A dangerous habit.

[Johnnie]

They are young and stupid, or they are Iraqi or Afghan veterans (read: burn out cases). They have essentially no fire discipline.

Wow. That's pretty bold. I'd like to see his numbers that back that up. The way that reads, he's making former military members seem like pathetic losers who were given a job based on sympathy.

I agree with his overall assessment though. Clear the streets, look for a singular bleeding dude in a dark hoodie, overwhelm with numbers. (And the bloodhound angle. That's an excellent point. Where are the bloodhounds? I mean blood is in their name, right?)

The funny thing in all of this is the scene. We basically had martial law and a day-long police state of roving bomb squads and tactical SWAT teams with ASSAULT weapons and very large and powerful uparmored vehicles aka "The Gub'ment." Isn't this scene one of the things crazy pro-gunners bitch about to have guns for? I know I saw a very stupid tweet by some schlub along the lines of "Man, the people of Boston who are afraid in their homes could benefit from an AR-15 right now." But the reality is, the majority of people simply don't own guns. (SO WE SHOULD ARM ALL CITIZENS! Ammiright?) And if a scene like this occurs, the people really are powerless to stop it.

[howard]

I submit recent war vets very likely have much better fire discipline than their cop peers. I agree with you completely on that score. I don't agree with every word in the article, including those.

eta: As for my own gun-nutty views, I am not so nutty to suffer the delusion that I can oppose the gubment with firearms. That ship has sailed. I will have to use my words to convince you soldiers, sailors, marines and airmen (saved the best for last) to come over to my side.

[Johnnie]

Unfortunately, the only weapons I would have access to are my own. When I live on base, I'm living in a city that can go into 'lockdown' at any moment. And, ohbytheway, my guns are with my cousin in Arizona. :-/

[howard]

Guns? I'm counting on you for an AC 130. A couple, if you can manage it.

[Steve of phpBB]

Regardless of what the FBI has or has not done, the Magistrate Judge gave Tsarnaev extensive Miranda warnings at his initial appearance today.

Transcript can be read here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... y_one.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It actually makes me proud of the US to read that, to read the judge repeatedly advising a guy suspected of a notorious and brutal crime of his rights against the state.

This is the kind of shit that makes me chant USA! USA! USA!

[Scottie]

This is the kind of shit that makes me chant USA! USA! USA!

Yes. The Feds announced (clearly, publicly) that Tsarnaev would not be read his Miranda rights for at least 48-hours given that his circumstances merited such. Then, 48-hours later (perhaps less), they read him his rights. This was the plan and that plan was carried out exactly as the administration said it would.

So far, so good.

[Steve of phpBB]

This is the kind of shit that makes me chant USA! USA! USA!

Yes. The Feds announced (clearly, publicly) that Tsarnaev would not be read his Miranda rights for at least 48-hours given that his circumstances merited such. Then, 48-hours later (perhaps less), they read him his rights. This was the plan and that plan was carried out exactly as the administration said it would.

So far, so good.

I think it's a little different that than. Unless I'm mistaken, the Feds, i.e., the FBI, have apparently never advised Tsarnaev of his rights. It was the judge who did it, and the admonitions in the transcript go beyond what I have seen done in federal courtrooms - though admittedly I have not seen a lot of appearances like that.

Someone like Chedda or Sybain would have a better idea as to whether the judge went beyond the normal in her Miranda advice.

[howard]

I bet Sy Bain has been read his rights, more than once.

[Scottie]

My point is (merely) that the Miranda rights were suspended for a 48-hour period, as was permitted under Federal laws, and when that period elapsed, or neared being elapsed, his Miranda was distinctly read. That is to say, there was no shenanigans. The powers that be did exactly what they said they'd do. There was no "oh, hang, on, we can try this."

So, sure, if it is "different" than that, it is not much different.

Answer me this. He was asked if he could afford a lawyer. He said "no". Unless some vile scumbag like Ron Kuby steps up and decides that self-promotion and personal politics trumps all, Tsarnaev gets a court-appointed attorney, right?

[govmentchedda]

It's been a few years since I've been in a criminal courtroom, but I never heard Miranda rights in court, unless someone was being arrested right there, (not that often an occurrence). (Guilty) plea colloquys often involve a longer discussion of the rights that the defendant has, but there's some reference to the Miranda rights that the client was giving up. That being said, I didn't practice in Federal Court, so I'm not sure what's done there.

[Steve of phpBB]

Unless some vile scumbag like Ron Kuby steps up and decides that self-promotion and personal politics trumps all, Tsarnaev gets a court-appointed attorney, right?

As I understand it, yes. There is an office of the Federal Public Defender, who represented him in the initial hearing. Presumably they would represent him at trial, though there could be any number of qualified lawyers who want to have their [chance at publicity] John Adams moment and step in.

[Damn, I wish we had strike-through.]

[Steve of phpBB]

It's been a few years since I've been in a criminal courtroom, but I never heard Miranda rights in court, unless someone was being arrested right there, (not that often an occurrence). (Guilty) plea colloquys often involve a longer discussion of the rights that the defendant has, but there's some reference to the Miranda rights that the client was giving up. That being said, I didn't practice in Federal Court, so I'm not sure what's done there.

My only knowledge comes from sitting in court waiting for a hearing on a civil matter, when they sometimes bring in federal defendants for various procedural steps. Now that you mention it, though, Chedda, when I was thinking of the admonitions given to a defendant, I was thinking of guilty pleas.

[govmentchedda]

My point is (merely) that the Miranda rights were suspended for a 48-hour period, as was permitted under Federal laws, and when that period elapsed, or neared being elapsed, his Miranda was distinctly read. That is to say, there was no shenanigans. The powers that be did exactly what they said they'd do. There was no "oh, hang, on, we can try this."

So, sure, if it is "different" than that, it is not much different.

Answer me this. He was asked if he could afford a lawyer. He said "no". Unless some vile scumbag like Ron Kuby steps up and decides that self-promotion and personal politics trumps all, Tsarnaev gets a court-appointed attorney, right?

He gets a bad ass Federal Public Defender. I read an article about her earlier tonight, she sounds like she is very good.

[Scottie]

He gets a bad ass Federal Public Defender. I read an article about her earlier tonight, she sounds like she is very good.

Let's just hope, surely in vain, that it is not some Nedra Ruiz or Jose Baez type that turns the trial in to their own personal stage.

Nah, who am I kidding.

[howard]

Ima gunna go soft here, just for a moment.

I have no problem with this kid getting a vigorous, competent defense. (I understand no one has expressed a view contrary to this idea. Self-promotion does not equal vigorous, competent defense.)

1) I think he is guilty (because if you were gonna set up a patsy, you would've done a much better job.) That said, aside from his being present at the murder, there has been zero evidence of his guilt presented to the public thus far. Of course this evidence will be presented, but so far we have seen none of it.

2) I am vehemently anti-death penalty. As part of that viewpoint, I want every criminal to avoid being sentenced to death. Not for their sake; for our sake as a society. When we execute even the most guilty murderer, we are diminished (imo).

Told ya I was going soft.

[sancarlos]

I'm soft that way, too. Anti-death penalty. Of course, even if somebody is sentenced to death, in most states that means 30 years on death row.

[Scottie]

Here's a question for lawyers et al. And I'm not a lawyer (although I would have made a particularly useful evil one; think about it) . . . And I ask this because I do not know, nor have I seen it addressed in any media reporting. Can Tsarnaev be charged locally (under state or municipal laws) with murder at the same time that he is being charged under Federal laws?

[howard]

Feds don't roll like that. McVeigh was four years from conviction to execution. They don't often seek the death penalty, but they dish it out. Probably more efficient today.

ETA: Oh, and Oswald was executed within 48 hours of his crime. Yeah, I said it!

Looking up McVeigh, I see Ramsi Yousef is in for life. I would've made an exception for that asshole.

ETAA: Then again, feds haven't executed anyone since 2003. Currently 57 men and 2 women on Fed death row.

(edited the numbers)

[Scottie]

Feds don't roll like that. McVeigh was four years from conviction to execution. They don't often seek the death penalty, but they dish it out. Probably more efficient today.

Looking up McVeigh, I see Ramsi Yousef is in for life. I would've made an exception for that asshole.

Part of the reason I asked that is from having read this (excellent) book about McVeigh.

The State charges were withheld as a back-up in case the Federal charges failed.

Much the same way that a serial killer who killed, say, 20 people, will initially get charged on three or four murders (enough to be life or needle worthy) while the justice system knows it always has other charges (that never expire, no limitations) just in case the initial charges fail.

Sound close?

[Steve of phpBB]

I'm vehemently anti-death penalty, too.

I don't believe in Big Government, and a government that claims the right to kill its citizens is about the biggest government possible.

Here's a question for lawyers et al. And I'm not a lawyer (although I would have made a particularly useful evil one; think about it) . . . And I ask this because I do not know, nor have I seen it addressed in any media reporting. Can Tsarnaev be charged locally (under state or municipal laws) with murder at the same time that he is being charged under Federal laws?

Yes. Double jeopardy does not apply to charges brought by different sovereigns. If Tsarnaev's alleged actions violate both federal law and state law, he can be charged by the feds and the state.

Didn't that happen to the cops who beat Rodney King on video? Acquitted on state charges, but then convicted of federal civil rights violations?

[Scottie]

Yes. Double jeopardy does not apply to charges brought by different sovereigns. If Tsarnaev's alleged actions violate both federal law and state law, he can be charged by the feds and the state.

Didn't that happen to the cops who beat Rodney King on video? Acquitted on state charges, but then convicted of federal civil rights violations?

Thanks, Steve. I was curious and clueless what Massachusetts (or even Boston itself) could hold in reserve.

Yeah, good example. Kind of the reverse arrangement this time, right? In the Rodney King case, those charges were brought in L.A. (were they even initially state charges? Or Los Angeles district charges?) And the Federal charges were held in reserve justincase and proved to be necessary.

[Steve of phpBB]

Yes. Double jeopardy does not apply to charges brought by different sovereigns. If Tsarnaev's alleged actions violate both federal law and state law, he can be charged by the feds and the state.

Didn't that happen to the cops who beat Rodney King on video? Acquitted on state charges, but then convicted of federal civil rights violations?

Thanks, Steve. I was curious and clueless what Massachusetts (or even Boston itself) could hold in reserve.

Yeah, good example. Kind of the reverse arrangement this time, right? In the Rodney King case, those charges were brought in L.A. (were they even initially state charges? Or Los Angeles district charges?) And the Federal charges were held in reserve justincase and proved to be necessary.

Generally, there are no charges brought on the city level. City-level charges would be for infractions like parking violations or speeding. Instead, any serious criminal charge is brought on behalf of state, for a violation of state law.

The prosecutor's offices are divided by counties, though, which makes things more confusing.

So when OJ was charged, it was the People of California vs Orenthal James Simpson, though the lawyers representing the People worked for the LA County District Attorney.

Here, the case is denominated United States v Tsarnaev, and the lawyers work for the United States Attorney for the District of Massachusetts.

[Scottie]

Right. And that which has not been pressed, as of yet anyway, would be Massachusetts v Tsarnaev, eh?

The only reason I initially brought up the municipal level was because the bombings occurred at a municipal event. I do sometimes get my two countries' justice systems confused. Up here, that would also (if not begin with) a municipal charge. But that's neither here nor there (this second paragraph is just a by-the-way).

[brian]

I'm presuming he's not being charged with the death of the MIT officer at this time. I imagine they have him dead to rights on that and worst case he does life in a MA prison without possibility of parole.

[Rush2112]

Saw a poll somewhere that MA was the only state in favour of not having him executed.

[Sabo]

I'm soft that way, too. Anti-death penalty. Of course, even if somebody is sentenced to death, in most states that means 30 years on death row.

It's about 8-10 years on death row in Ohio. They like to execute mofos in this state.