The Swamp

Scottie wrote: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.

garyclark wrote: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.

Joe K wrote:

garyclark wrote: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.

Shirley wrote: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.

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

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.

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

Steve of phpBB wrote:This is the kind of shit that makes me chant USA! USA! USA!

Scottie wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote: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.

Scottie wrote: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 wrote: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.

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

howard wrote: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.

Scottie wrote: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?

Steve of phpBB wrote: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 wrote:

Steve of phpBB wrote: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.

sancarlos wrote: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.