(CNN) -- Unable to speak, the surviving suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings has been communicating with authorities in writing, a senior federal official briefed on the investigation told CNN Monday
Do you people realize that it was a guy who left his house after the lock down ended and noticed his boat cover disturbed and investigated and discovered the guy in his boat? not the authorities ... just saying... you do realize it was the authorities who allow backpacks into places like this? the authorities who are responsible for people safety never considered that someone with a backpack could cause problems?
So as so often happens in these type of events it's civilians who provide the tip that leads to an arrest. So maybe its in societies best interest to avoid lock downs, avoid treating the innocent like criminals and just ask them "to vigilante and report anything suspicious".
After the initial chaos it was also the civilians who are very real hero's here as well ... in most cases it was civilians who were helping/comforting the injured first ... they are the first responders, they choose to stay and help, not because it's their job but because it was the human thing to do.
so I'll reserve my for the civilians ... the one's who selflessly helped injured people and the civilian that noticed that something was not right with his boat and notified the authorities after the lock down ended.
I'll also give to the the police, ems, fire, doctors, nurses who conducted themselves professionally.
Do you people realize that it was a guy who left his house after the lock down ended and noticed his boat cover disturbed and investigated and discovered the guy in his boat? not the authorities ... just saying... you do realize it was the authorities who allow backpacks into places like this? the authorities who are responsible for people safety never considered that someone with a backpack could cause problems?
So as so often happens in these type of events it's civilians who provide the tip that leads to an arrest. So maybe its in societies best interest to avoid lock downs, avoid treating the innocent like criminals and just ask them "to vigilante and report anything suspicious".
After the initial chaos it was also the civilians who are very real hero's here as well ... in most cases it was civilians who were helping/comforting the injured first ... they are the first responders, they choose to stay and help, not because it's their job but because it was the human thing to do.
so I'll reserve my for the civilians ... the one's who selflessly helped injured people and the civilian that noticed that something was not right with his boat and notified the authorities after the lock down ended.
I'll also give to the the police, ems, fire, doctors, nurses who conducted themselves professionally.
=so both civilians and police should work together for the safety..i think we all agree..
2 things to add to your post about the backpacks..after a few days London has marathon as well..
you know how crazy was the whole??you couldnt even open a bottle of water or put your hand in your pocket without a policeman look at you..
the check points was unreal..
no one at london could take the risk to happen what happens to london..
is that against people freedom??sure..but what can authorities do??
and yes..the heroes are exactly the ones you mention
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Your question about how it could have been done better has been answered many times. If you don't like the answer that's fine.
Can you point me to where it has been answered? I continue to read about what should not have been done, not what should have been done.
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Do you people realize that it was a guy who left his house after the lock down ended and noticed his boat cover disturbed and investigated and discovered the guy in his boat? not the authorities ... just saying... you do realize it was the authorities who allow backpacks into places like this? the authorities who are responsible for people safety never considered that someone with a backpack could cause problems?
So as so often happens in these type of events it's civilians who provide the tip that leads to an arrest. So maybe its in societies best interest to avoid lock downs, avoid treating the innocent like criminals and just ask them "to vigilante and report anything suspicious".
After the initial chaos it was also the civilians who are very real hero's here as well ... in most cases it was civilians who were helping/comforting the injured first ... they are the first responders, they choose to stay and help, not because it's their job but because it was the human thing to do.
so I'll reserve my for the civilians ... the one's who selflessly helped injured people and the civilian that noticed that something was not right with his boat and notified the authorities after the lock down ended.
I'll also give to the the police, ems, fire, doctors, nurses who conducted themselves professionally.
Just to clarify, the authorities did not allow backpacks into a place like this because there was no place to enter. The finish line is accessible from any side street off of Boylston. People walk up and stake out their position, as they have for 117 years. There was no security checkpoint to pass through. There will be next year I am sure but there never has been before.
And up until Monday the most dangerous thing anyone had in a backpack was probably beer.
I personally feel that bending and breaking the law to catch perps is wrong. We have laws and rights for a reason. As scary as things got (much hyped by the media and the police imo) I don't think there was the justification to suspend those rights to catch this 19 year old wounded suspected terrorist.
Out of fear you may be willing to give up your rights, I am not.
my rights???what to do my rights if im dead after a terrorist blow the shit out of me??
someone please post how they could search 40-50 blocks for a man he want to kill people,.man he did it already without give a shit about innocent going to die..
someone knows,police tactics without block areas,communication,search house and boats,dog houses,, block roads,or whatever..
anyone knows another method,i would be happy to read it
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Your question about how it could have been done better has been answered many times. If you don't like the answer that's fine.
Can you point me to where it has been answered? I continue to read about what should not have been done, not what should have been done.
I am no expert in law or policing but successful manhunts happen all the time, without locking down a city, violating the rights of civilians and acting like a military force. We could look at any of these cases and get a road map of how it should have been done.
I have no illusions that a manhunt can be done perfectly, we are all human after all, even the police. But I do think it could have been done much better, within the boundaries of the law.
Do you people realize that it was a guy who left his house after the lock down ended and noticed his boat cover disturbed and investigated and discovered the guy in his boat? not the authorities ... just saying... you do realize it was the authorities who allow backpacks into places like this? the authorities who are responsible for people safety never considered that someone with a backpack could cause problems?
So as so often happens in these type of events it's civilians who provide the tip that leads to an arrest. So maybe its in societies best interest to avoid lock downs, avoid treating the innocent like criminals and just ask them "to vigilante and report anything suspicious".
After the initial chaos it was also the civilians who are very real hero's here as well ... in most cases it was civilians who were helping/comforting the injured first ... they are the first responders, they choose to stay and help, not because it's their job but because it was the human thing to do.
so I'll reserve my for the civilians ... the one's who selflessly helped injured people and the civilian that noticed that something was not right with his boat and notified the authorities after the lock down ended.
I'll also give to the the police, ems, fire, doctors, nurses who conducted themselves professionally.
=so both civilians and police should work together for the safety..i think we all agree..
2 things to add to your post about the backpacks..after a few days London has marathon as well..
you know how crazy was the whole??you couldnt even open a bottle of water or put your hand in your pocket without a policeman look at you..
the check points was unreal..
no one at london could take the risk to happen what happens to london..
is that against people freedom??sure..but what can authorities do??
and yes..the heroes are exactly the ones you mention
Thats their job to be vigilante in public spaces ... entering my home without cause or telling me I can't leave is not ok with me ... that is slippery slope ... a slope in which no one should want to be on.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Your question about how it could have been done better has been answered many times. If you don't like the answer that's fine.
Can you point me to where it has been answered? I continue to read about what should not have been done, not what should have been done.
I am no expert in law or policing but successful manhunts happen all the time, without locking down a city, violating the rights of civilians and acting like a military force. We could look at any of these cases and get a road map of how it should have been done.
I have no illusions that a manhunt can be done perfectly, we are all human after all, even the police. But I do think it could have been done much better, within the boundaries of the law.
So, it has not been answered many times. At least not in any answer that any of us have read here.
I don't expect you to be an expert in law or policing. I am certainly not either. And it may be possible that it could have been done better. But I think it is far too easy criticize what was done, what did stop him from killing again, without knowing what the alternatives could have been. Had he gotten away none of us know what would have happened next.
Do you people realize that it was a guy who left his house after the lock down ended and noticed his boat cover disturbed and investigated and discovered the guy in his boat? not the authorities ... just saying... you do realize it was the authorities who allow backpacks into places like this? the authorities who are responsible for people safety never considered that someone with a backpack could cause problems?
So as so often happens in these type of events it's civilians who provide the tip that leads to an arrest. So maybe its in societies best interest to avoid lock downs, avoid treating the innocent like criminals and just ask them "to vigilante and report anything suspicious".
After the initial chaos it was also the civilians who are very real hero's here as well ... in most cases it was civilians who were helping/comforting the injured first ... they are the first responders, they choose to stay and help, not because it's their job but because it was the human thing to do.
so I'll reserve my for the civilians ... the one's who selflessly helped injured people and the civilian that noticed that something was not right with his boat and notified the authorities after the lock down ended.
I'll also give to the the police, ems, fire, doctors, nurses who conducted themselves professionally.
thank you, thank you, thank you
I'm really surprised that on a rock bands website that so many are ok with the authorities extending their powers ... especially when the facts indicate the civilians were just as helpful and many cases were more helpful.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Your question about how it could have been done better has been answered many times. If you don't like the answer that's fine.
Can you point me to where it has been answered? I continue to read about what should not have been done, not what should have been done.
I am no expert in law or policing but successful manhunts happen all the time, without locking down a city, violating the rights of civilians and acting like a military force. We could look at any of these cases and get a road map of how it should have been done.
I have no illusions that a manhunt can be done perfectly, we are all human after all, even the police. But I do think it could have been done much better, within the boundaries of the law.
is like telling me after 9/11 the authorities should let airplanes fly over Manhattan..
for the rights of the passengers..
and as you said ,you arent expert..
those experts are the one has the responsibility for do this..
they choose not to risk another civilian dead..how they did it???
maybe looks bad this military style on the streets..i agree..
but they are the ones have to give answers if more people will die in another terrorist attack,,not me and you..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Thats their job to be vigilante in public spaces ... entering my home without cause or telling me I can't leave is not ok with me ... that is slippery slope ... a slope in which no one should want to be on.
my friend,we agree...
but all this is easy..when all is calm and safe...
with a bomber in the area,you cant risk it..at the heat of the moment you may take fast calls for save lifes
looks bad,to say people dont go out..
but i think..they said for keep them safe..not for take their freedom and their rights
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?
The marathon bombs triggered a reaction that is at odds with last week's inertia over arms control
Michael Cohen in the US
The Observer, Sunday 21 April 2013
The thriving metropolis of Boston was turned into a ghost town on Friday. Nearly a million Bostonians were asked to stay in their homes – and willingly complied. Schools were closed; business shuttered; trains, subways and roads were empty; usually busy streets eerily resembled a post-apocalyptic movie set; even baseball games and cultural events were cancelled – all in response to a 19-year-old fugitive, who was on foot and clearly identified by the news media.
The actions allegedly committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were heinous. Four people dead and more than 100 wounded, some with shredded and amputated limbs.
But Londoners, who endured IRA terror for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right – and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few that we've seen previously in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.
After all, it's not as if this is the first time that homicidal killers have been on the loose in a major American city. In 2002, Washington DC was terrorised by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, a disgruntled police officer, Christopher Dorner, murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles. In neither case was LA or DC put on lockdown mode, perhaps because neither of these sprees was branded with that magically evocative and seemingly terrifying word for Americans, terrorism.
To be sure, public officials in Boston appeared to be acting out of an abundance of caution. And it's appropriate for Boston residents to be asked to take precautions or keep their eyes open. But by letting one fugitive terrorist shut down a major American city, Boston not only bowed to outsize and irrational fears, but sent a dangerous message to every would-be terrorist – if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here's your instruction booklet.
Putting aside the economic and psychological cost, the lockdown also prevented an early capture of the alleged bomber, who was discovered after Bostonians were given the all clear and a Watertown man wandered into his backyard for a cigarette and found a bleeding terrorist on his boat.
In some regards, there is a positive spin on this – it's a reflection of how little Americans have to worry about terrorism. A population such as London during the IRA bombings or Israel during the second intifada or Baghdad, pretty much every day, becomes inured to random political violence. Americans who have such little experience of terrorism, relatively speaking, are more primed to overreact – and assume the absolute worst when it comes to the threat of a terror attack. It is as if somehow in the American imagination, every terrorist is a not just a mortal threat, but is a deadly combination of Jason Bourne and James Bond.
If only Americans reacted the same way to the actual threats that exist in their country. There's something quite fitting and ironic about the fact that the Boston freak-out happened in the same week the Senate blocked consideration of a gun control bill that would have strengthened background checks for potential buyers. Even though this reform is supported by more than 90% of Americans, and even though 56 out of 100 senators voted in favour of it, the Republican minority prevented even a vote from being held on the bill because it would have allegedly violated the second amendment rights of "law-abiding Americans".
So for those of you keeping score at home – locking down an American city: a proper reaction to the threat from one terrorist. A background check to prevent criminals or those with mental illness from purchasing guns: a dastardly attack on civil liberties. All of this would be almost darkly comic if not for the fact that more Americans will die needlessly as a result. Already, more than 30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died last year in terrorist attacks).
What makes US gun violence so particularly horrifying is how routine and mundane it has become. After the massacre of 20 kindergartners in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, millions of Americans began to take greater notice of the threat from gun violence. Yet since then, the daily carnage that guns produce has continued unabated and often unnoticed.
The same day of the marathon bombing in Boston, 11 Americans were murdered by guns. The pregnant Breshauna Jackson was killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend. In Richmond, California, James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown. Nigel Hardy, a 13-year-old boy in Palmdale, California, who was being bullied in school, took his own life. He used the gun that his father kept at home. And in Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child.
At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers that ended on Friday evening, 38 more Americans – with little fanfare – died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3,531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months – a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.
It's not just firearms that produce such legislative inaction. Last week, a fertiliser plant in West, Texas, which hasn't been inspected by federal regulators since 1985, exploded, killing 14 people and injuring countless others. Yet many Republicans want to cut further the funding for the agency (OSHA) that is responsible for such reviews. The vast majority of Americans die from one of four ailments – cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease – and yet Republicans have held three dozen votes to repeal Obamacare, which expands healthcare coverage to 30 million Americans.
It is a surreal and difficult-to-explain dynamic. Americans seemingly place an inordinate fear on violence that is random and unexplainable and can be blamed on "others" – jihadists, terrorists, evil-doers etc. But the lurking dangers all around us – the guns, our unhealthy diets, the workplaces that kill 14 Americans every single day – these are just accepted as part of life, the price of freedom, if you will. And so the violence goes, with more Americans dying preventable deaths. But hey, look on the bright side – we got those sons of bitches who blew up the marathon.
Granted they're vastly different situations but still about potential injury and loss of life - but wouldn't the lockdowns be handled in the same way as the so-called mandatory evacuations during a fire?
I see it as a common sense thing - "look people, there's a chance some harm could come to you if you don't stay inside while we search for this fucker" or "look people, there's a chance some harm could come to you if you don't get the fuck out now before your home burns".
These courses can be strongly recommended, but in the midst of the madness, what are they gonna do to someone refusing to abide by the directive, whether it's stay in or get out?
Don't play with words: inciting violence is a little different than crime and punishment.
It's been suggested that vengeance is the justice that people are seeking in this case. I think there's an enormous body of legal theory, philosophy and psychology supporting the idea that vengeance is smallest and perhaps least important part of "justice." Ask yourselves: when did you feel relief in this case? When you heard that he was captured? Or when you heard that he was bloodied in the process? Personally, I can say without a doubt (and I think most honest people will agree) that I felt far more relief knowing that the guy was caught than I did knowing that he had been injured or shot in the process. My secondary concern after the bombings happened (primary being the people killed or injured) was: what's next? Are there others? Will more die? It was vaguely how I felt after September 11.
Our justice system, as in many civil societies, is theoretically and largely based on restoration of order, not retribution. The media focuses on the criminals, sure, because it's interesting, it draws viewers etc (and there's a whole body of theory on why that is too). But realistically and practically speaking, criminal justice is focused on taking disorder and making it orderly again. Chaos after a bomb goes off in a crowd of innocent people...into a conviction and a state-sanctioned sentence. Our dispassionate processes ensure that no one violent criminal or act can send our world into chaos and dysfunction. For so many reasons that I do not need to elaborate on, I much prefer this scenario, as opposed to chaos after a bomb...into the chaos of mob justice.
The concern with people describing what they'd like to see done to this guy or why they're glad/satisfied/OK with whatever injuries he has is that many of us, myself included, don't just limit their opinions to these messageboards. You got out. You talk with your family. You talk with your friends. You tell your co-workers. You tell your kids. You cast votes. You sit on juries.
And sooner or later, the pernicious idea that vengeance IS justice sits in the minds of people who are able to deny due process. And when that happens, sooner or later, due process is denied in a case where the defendant truly could benefit from it (i.e. the wrongfully convicted).
What I've been arguing in this thread has nothing to do with whether I think this guy is guilty and deserves severe punishment (I do). It has everything to do with what I perceive as a concerning trend among people to allow emotion and hot-bloodedness to guide the things they say and do. Even in most cruel and awful cases, dispassionate reason must be our guide. Ask yourselves: is the benefit in capturing this guy that order and peace has been restored? Or are we happier because he's been punched, shot or injured?
I implore you: don't waste your breathe and energy and good nature wishing pain and suffering on a guy like this. He will be dealt with accordingly.
Take chaos and make it orderly.
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2023-08-31 Wrigley 2 2023-09-15 Fenway 1
Do you people realize that it was a guy who left his house after the lock down ended and noticed his boat cover disturbed and investigated and discovered the guy in his boat? not the authorities ... just saying... you do realize it was the authorities who allow backpacks into places like this? the authorities who are responsible for people safety never considered that someone with a backpack could cause problems?
So as so often happens in these type of events it's civilians who provide the tip that leads to an arrest. So maybe its in societies best interest to avoid lock downs, avoid treating the innocent like criminals and just ask them "to vigilante and report anything suspicious".
After the initial chaos it was also the civilians who are very real hero's here as well ... in most cases it was civilians who were helping/comforting the injured first ... they are the first responders, they choose to stay and help, not because it's their job but because it was the human thing to do.
so I'll reserve my for the civilians ... the one's who selflessly helped injured people and the civilian that noticed that something was not right with his boat and notified the authorities after the lock down ended.
I'll also give to the the police, ems, fire, doctors, nurses who conducted themselves professionally.
thank you, thank you, thank you
I'm really surprised that on a rock bands website that so many are ok with the authorities extending their powers ... especially when the facts indicate the civilians were just as helpful and many cases were more helpful.
Facts are easily ignored when emotions are running high.
Thats their job to be vigilante in public spaces ... entering my home without cause or telling me I can't leave is not ok with me ... that is slippery slope ... a slope in which no one should want to be on.
my friend,we agree...
but all this is easy..when all is calm and safe...
with a bomber in the area,you cant risk it..at the heat of the moment you may take fast calls for save lifes
looks bad,to say people dont go out..
but i think..they said for keep them safe..not for take their freedom and their rights
Just remember it was a civilian that tipped the authorities to his location.
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I'm really surprised that on a rock bands website that so many are ok with the authorities extending their powers ... especially when the facts indicate the civilians were just as helpful and many cases were more helpful.
i agree..the problem is when u need to secure fast a situation,must take calls that leave no risk..i think they did that this time..
i dont know anyone with common sense that likes military in the street of the city..
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?
The marathon bombs triggered a reaction that is at odds with last week's inertia over arms control
Michael Cohen in the US
The Observer, Sunday 21 April 2013
The thriving metropolis of Boston was turned into a ghost town on Friday. Nearly a million Bostonians were asked to stay in their homes – and willingly complied. Schools were closed; business shuttered; trains, subways and roads were empty; usually busy streets eerily resembled a post-apocalyptic movie set; even baseball games and cultural events were cancelled – all in response to a 19-year-old fugitive, who was on foot and clearly identified by the news media.
The actions allegedly committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were heinous. Four people dead and more than 100 wounded, some with shredded and amputated limbs.
But Londoners, who endured IRA terror for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right – and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few that we've seen previously in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.
After all, it's not as if this is the first time that homicidal killers have been on the loose in a major American city. In 2002, Washington DC was terrorised by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, a disgruntled police officer, Christopher Dorner, murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles. In neither case was LA or DC put on lockdown mode, perhaps because neither of these sprees was branded with that magically evocative and seemingly terrifying word for Americans, terrorism.
To be sure, public officials in Boston appeared to be acting out of an abundance of caution. And it's appropriate for Boston residents to be asked to take precautions or keep their eyes open. But by letting one fugitive terrorist shut down a major American city, Boston not only bowed to outsize and irrational fears, but sent a dangerous message to every would-be terrorist – if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here's your instruction booklet.
Putting aside the economic and psychological cost, the lockdown also prevented an early capture of the alleged bomber, who was discovered after Bostonians were given the all clear and a Watertown man wandered into his backyard for a cigarette and found a bleeding terrorist on his boat.
In some regards, there is a positive spin on this – it's a reflection of how little Americans have to worry about terrorism. A population such as London during the IRA bombings or Israel during the second intifada or Baghdad, pretty much every day, becomes inured to random political violence. Americans who have such little experience of terrorism, relatively speaking, are more primed to overreact – and assume the absolute worst when it comes to the threat of a terror attack. It is as if somehow in the American imagination, every terrorist is a not just a mortal threat, but is a deadly combination of Jason Bourne and James Bond.
If only Americans reacted the same way to the actual threats that exist in their country. There's something quite fitting and ironic about the fact that the Boston freak-out happened in the same week the Senate blocked consideration of a gun control bill that would have strengthened background checks for potential buyers. Even though this reform is supported by more than 90% of Americans, and even though 56 out of 100 senators voted in favour of it, the Republican minority prevented even a vote from being held on the bill because it would have allegedly violated the second amendment rights of "law-abiding Americans".
So for those of you keeping score at home – locking down an American city: a proper reaction to the threat from one terrorist. A background check to prevent criminals or those with mental illness from purchasing guns: a dastardly attack on civil liberties. All of this would be almost darkly comic if not for the fact that more Americans will die needlessly as a result. Already, more than 30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died last year in terrorist attacks).
What makes US gun violence so particularly horrifying is how routine and mundane it has become. After the massacre of 20 kindergartners in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, millions of Americans began to take greater notice of the threat from gun violence. Yet since then, the daily carnage that guns produce has continued unabated and often unnoticed.
The same day of the marathon bombing in Boston, 11 Americans were murdered by guns. The pregnant Breshauna Jackson was killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend. In Richmond, California, James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown. Nigel Hardy, a 13-year-old boy in Palmdale, California, who was being bullied in school, took his own life. He used the gun that his father kept at home. And in Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child.
At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers that ended on Friday evening, 38 more Americans – with little fanfare – died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3,531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months – a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.
It's not just firearms that produce such legislative inaction. Last week, a fertiliser plant in West, Texas, which hasn't been inspected by federal regulators since 1985, exploded, killing 14 people and injuring countless others. Yet many Republicans want to cut further the funding for the agency (OSHA) that is responsible for such reviews. The vast majority of Americans die from one of four ailments – cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease – and yet Republicans have held three dozen votes to repeal Obamacare, which expands healthcare coverage to 30 million Americans.
It is a surreal and difficult-to-explain dynamic. Americans seemingly place an inordinate fear on violence that is random and unexplainable and can be blamed on "others" – jihadists, terrorists, evil-doers etc. But the lurking dangers all around us – the guns, our unhealthy diets, the workplaces that kill 14 Americans every single day – these are just accepted as part of life, the price of freedom, if you will. And so the violence goes, with more Americans dying preventable deaths. But hey, look on the bright side – we got those sons of bitches who blew up the marathon.
Great article ...
I have certain rules I live by ... My First Rule ... I don't believe anything the government tells me ... George Carlin
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
I'm also thinking that from a policing and search point of view, having all kinds of people in the streets, gawking, trying to get some footage or photos on their cell phones to be able to put up on youtube or sell to the papers (the 'I was there' thing), etc. for their 15 minutes of fame would hinder the efforts of those trying to find the guy. Not only would they need to be super vigilant to their surroundings for their main purpose, they would have to be looking after the safety of the people out in the streets when a potentially dangerous person is on the loose in the neighbourhood.
Another point, easier to find a 'fugitive' trying to run away when no one else is in the street, as opposed to this fugitive melting away in a crowd.
If people hadn't been evacuated or told to stay in, I'd hate to think what the whole 'pointing of fingers' would be if one or more citizens got hurt or killed by a potential grenade/bomb/gun.
They just didn't know what this guy had on him/with him.
Don't play with words: inciting violence is a little different than crime and punishment.
It's been suggested that vengeance is the justice that people are seeking in this case. I think there's an enormous body of legal theory, philosophy and psychology supporting the idea that vengeance is smallest and perhaps least important part of "justice." Ask yourselves: when did you feel relief in this case? When you heard that he was captured? Or when you heard that he was bloodied in the process? Personally, I can say without a doubt (and I think most honest people will agree) that I felt far more relief knowing that the guy was caught than I did knowing that he had been injured or shot in the process. My secondary concern after the bombings happened (primary being the people killed or injured) was: what's next? Are there others? Will more die? It was vaguely how I felt after September 11.
Our justice system, as in many civil societies, is theoretically and largely based on restoration of order, not retribution. The media focuses on the criminals, sure, because it's interesting, it draws viewers etc (and there's a whole body of theory on why that is too). But realistically and practically speaking, criminal justice is focused on taking disorder and making it orderly again. Chaos after a bomb goes off in a crowd of innocent people...into a conviction and a state-sanctioned sentence. Our dispassionate processes ensure that no one violent criminal or act can send our world into chaos and dysfunction. For so many reasons that I do not need to elaborate on, I much prefer this scenario, as opposed to chaos after a bomb...into the chaos of mob justice.
The concern with people describing what they'd like to see done to this guy or why they're glad/satisfied/OK with whatever injuries he has is that many of us, myself included, don't just limit their opinions to these messageboards. You got out. You talk with your family. You talk with your friends. You tell your co-workers. You tell your kids. You cast votes. You sit on juries.
And sooner or later, the pernicious idea that vengeance IS justice sits in the minds of people who are able to deny due process. And when that happens, sooner or later, due process is denied in a case where the defendant truly could benefit from it (i.e. the wrongfully convicted).
What I've been arguing in this thread has nothing to do with whether I think this guy is guilty and deserves severe punishment (I do). It has everything to do with what I perceive as a concerning trend among people to allow emotion and hot-bloodedness to guide the things they say and do. Even in most cruel and awful cases, dispassionate reason must be our guide. Ask yourselves: is the benefit in capturing this guy that order and peace has been restored? Or are we happier because he's been punched, shot or injured?
I implore you: don't waste your breathe and energy and good nature wishing pain and suffering on a guy like this. He will be dealt with accordingly.
Thats their job to be vigilante in public spaces ... entering my home without cause or telling me I can't leave is not ok with me ... that is slippery slope ... a slope in which no one should want to be on.
my friend,we agree...
but all this is easy..when all is calm and safe...
with a bomber in the area,you cant risk it..at the heat of the moment you may take fast calls for save lifes
looks bad,to say people dont go out..
but i think..they said for keep them safe..not for take their freedom and their rights
Just remember it was a civilian that tipped the authorities to his location.
yes,true..
and authorities was the ones gave the phoyos to public to give them tips,for find the guy..
its all about the risk and responsibility..no one up at the fbi ,goverment want to take the blame that he didnt do everything he could to secure the city and not another civilian die
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Comments
Get back in your house and be quiet!
:P
Did the authorities over-do it. I think that's whats being argued.
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/22/us/boston ... ?hpt=hp_t1
Godfather.
thank you, thank you, thank you
Can you point me to where it has been answered? I continue to read about what should not have been done, not what should have been done.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
2 things to add to your post about the backpacks..after a few days London has marathon as well..
you know how crazy was the whole??you couldnt even open a bottle of water or put your hand in your pocket without a policeman look at you..
the check points was unreal..
no one at london could take the risk to happen what happens to london..
is that against people freedom??sure..but what can authorities do??
and yes..the heroes are exactly the ones you mention
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Just to clarify, the authorities did not allow backpacks into a place like this because there was no place to enter. The finish line is accessible from any side street off of Boylston. People walk up and stake out their position, as they have for 117 years. There was no security checkpoint to pass through. There will be next year I am sure but there never has been before.
And up until Monday the most dangerous thing anyone had in a backpack was probably beer.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
someone please post how they could search 40-50 blocks for a man he want to kill people,.man he did it already without give a shit about innocent going to die..
someone knows,police tactics without block areas,communication,search house and boats,dog houses,, block roads,or whatever..
anyone knows another method,i would be happy to read it
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
I am no expert in law or policing but successful manhunts happen all the time, without locking down a city, violating the rights of civilians and acting like a military force. We could look at any of these cases and get a road map of how it should have been done.
I have no illusions that a manhunt can be done perfectly, we are all human after all, even the police. But I do think it could have been done much better, within the boundaries of the law.
Thanks - it's a bit tough to tell.
Thats their job to be vigilante in public spaces ... entering my home without cause or telling me I can't leave is not ok with me ... that is slippery slope ... a slope in which no one should want to be on.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
So, it has not been answered many times. At least not in any answer that any of us have read here.
I don't expect you to be an expert in law or policing. I am certainly not either. And it may be possible that it could have been done better. But I think it is far too easy criticize what was done, what did stop him from killing again, without knowing what the alternatives could have been. Had he gotten away none of us know what would have happened next.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Yep.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
:fp: :fp: :fp:
I'm really surprised that on a rock bands website that so many are ok with the authorities extending their powers ... especially when the facts indicate the civilians were just as helpful and many cases were more helpful.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
for the rights of the passengers..
and as you said ,you arent expert..
those experts are the one has the responsibility for do this..
they choose not to risk another civilian dead..how they did it???
maybe looks bad this military style on the streets..i agree..
but they are the ones have to give answers if more people will die in another terrorist attack,,not me and you..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
but all this is easy..when all is calm and safe...
with a bomber in the area,you cant risk it..at the heat of the moment you may take fast calls for save lifes
looks bad,to say people dont go out..
but i think..they said for keep them safe..not for take their freedom and their rights
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... us-gun-law
Why does America lose its head over 'terror' but ignore its daily gun deaths?
The marathon bombs triggered a reaction that is at odds with last week's inertia over arms control
Michael Cohen in the US
The Observer, Sunday 21 April 2013
The thriving metropolis of Boston was turned into a ghost town on Friday. Nearly a million Bostonians were asked to stay in their homes – and willingly complied. Schools were closed; business shuttered; trains, subways and roads were empty; usually busy streets eerily resembled a post-apocalyptic movie set; even baseball games and cultural events were cancelled – all in response to a 19-year-old fugitive, who was on foot and clearly identified by the news media.
The actions allegedly committed by the Boston marathon bomber, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his brother, Tamerlan, were heinous. Four people dead and more than 100 wounded, some with shredded and amputated limbs.
But Londoners, who endured IRA terror for years, might be forgiven for thinking that America over-reacted just a tad to the goings-on in Boston. They're right – and then some. What we saw was a collective freak-out like few that we've seen previously in the United States. It was yet another depressing reminder that more than 11 years after 9/11 Americans still allow themselves to be easily and willingly cowed by the "threat" of terrorism.
After all, it's not as if this is the first time that homicidal killers have been on the loose in a major American city. In 2002, Washington DC was terrorised by two roving snipers, who randomly shot and killed 10 people. In February, a disgruntled police officer, Christopher Dorner, murdered four people over several days in Los Angeles. In neither case was LA or DC put on lockdown mode, perhaps because neither of these sprees was branded with that magically evocative and seemingly terrifying word for Americans, terrorism.
To be sure, public officials in Boston appeared to be acting out of an abundance of caution. And it's appropriate for Boston residents to be asked to take precautions or keep their eyes open. But by letting one fugitive terrorist shut down a major American city, Boston not only bowed to outsize and irrational fears, but sent a dangerous message to every would-be terrorist – if you want to wreak havoc in the United States, intimidate its population and disrupt public order, here's your instruction booklet.
Putting aside the economic and psychological cost, the lockdown also prevented an early capture of the alleged bomber, who was discovered after Bostonians were given the all clear and a Watertown man wandered into his backyard for a cigarette and found a bleeding terrorist on his boat.
In some regards, there is a positive spin on this – it's a reflection of how little Americans have to worry about terrorism. A population such as London during the IRA bombings or Israel during the second intifada or Baghdad, pretty much every day, becomes inured to random political violence. Americans who have such little experience of terrorism, relatively speaking, are more primed to overreact – and assume the absolute worst when it comes to the threat of a terror attack. It is as if somehow in the American imagination, every terrorist is a not just a mortal threat, but is a deadly combination of Jason Bourne and James Bond.
If only Americans reacted the same way to the actual threats that exist in their country. There's something quite fitting and ironic about the fact that the Boston freak-out happened in the same week the Senate blocked consideration of a gun control bill that would have strengthened background checks for potential buyers. Even though this reform is supported by more than 90% of Americans, and even though 56 out of 100 senators voted in favour of it, the Republican minority prevented even a vote from being held on the bill because it would have allegedly violated the second amendment rights of "law-abiding Americans".
So for those of you keeping score at home – locking down an American city: a proper reaction to the threat from one terrorist. A background check to prevent criminals or those with mental illness from purchasing guns: a dastardly attack on civil liberties. All of this would be almost darkly comic if not for the fact that more Americans will die needlessly as a result. Already, more than 30,000 Americans die in gun violence every year (compared to the 17 who died last year in terrorist attacks).
What makes US gun violence so particularly horrifying is how routine and mundane it has become. After the massacre of 20 kindergartners in an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut, millions of Americans began to take greater notice of the threat from gun violence. Yet since then, the daily carnage that guns produce has continued unabated and often unnoticed.
The same day of the marathon bombing in Boston, 11 Americans were murdered by guns. The pregnant Breshauna Jackson was killed in Dallas, allegedly by her boyfriend. In Richmond, California, James Tucker III was shot and killed while riding his bicycle – assailants unknown. Nigel Hardy, a 13-year-old boy in Palmdale, California, who was being bullied in school, took his own life. He used the gun that his father kept at home. And in Brooklyn, New York, an off-duty police officer used her department-issued Glock 9mm handgun to kill herself, her boyfriend and her one-year old child.
At the same time that investigators were in the midst of a high-profile manhunt for the marathon bombers that ended on Friday evening, 38 more Americans – with little fanfare – died from gun violence. One was a 22-year old resident of Boston. They are a tiny percentage of the 3,531 Americans killed by guns in the past four months – a total that surpasses the number of Americans who died on 9/11 and is one fewer than the number of US soldiers who lost their lives in combat operations in Iraq. Yet, none of this daily violence was considered urgent enough to motivate Congress to impose a mild, commonsense restriction on gun purchasers.
It's not just firearms that produce such legislative inaction. Last week, a fertiliser plant in West, Texas, which hasn't been inspected by federal regulators since 1985, exploded, killing 14 people and injuring countless others. Yet many Republicans want to cut further the funding for the agency (OSHA) that is responsible for such reviews. The vast majority of Americans die from one of four ailments – cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and chronic lung disease – and yet Republicans have held three dozen votes to repeal Obamacare, which expands healthcare coverage to 30 million Americans.
It is a surreal and difficult-to-explain dynamic. Americans seemingly place an inordinate fear on violence that is random and unexplainable and can be blamed on "others" – jihadists, terrorists, evil-doers etc. But the lurking dangers all around us – the guns, our unhealthy diets, the workplaces that kill 14 Americans every single day – these are just accepted as part of life, the price of freedom, if you will. And so the violence goes, with more Americans dying preventable deaths. But hey, look on the bright side – we got those sons of bitches who blew up the marathon.
I see it as a common sense thing - "look people, there's a chance some harm could come to you if you don't stay inside while we search for this fucker" or "look people, there's a chance some harm could come to you if you don't get the fuck out now before your home burns".
These courses can be strongly recommended, but in the midst of the madness, what are they gonna do to someone refusing to abide by the directive, whether it's stay in or get out?
It's been suggested that vengeance is the justice that people are seeking in this case. I think there's an enormous body of legal theory, philosophy and psychology supporting the idea that vengeance is smallest and perhaps least important part of "justice." Ask yourselves: when did you feel relief in this case? When you heard that he was captured? Or when you heard that he was bloodied in the process? Personally, I can say without a doubt (and I think most honest people will agree) that I felt far more relief knowing that the guy was caught than I did knowing that he had been injured or shot in the process. My secondary concern after the bombings happened (primary being the people killed or injured) was: what's next? Are there others? Will more die? It was vaguely how I felt after September 11.
Our justice system, as in many civil societies, is theoretically and largely based on restoration of order, not retribution. The media focuses on the criminals, sure, because it's interesting, it draws viewers etc (and there's a whole body of theory on why that is too). But realistically and practically speaking, criminal justice is focused on taking disorder and making it orderly again. Chaos after a bomb goes off in a crowd of innocent people...into a conviction and a state-sanctioned sentence. Our dispassionate processes ensure that no one violent criminal or act can send our world into chaos and dysfunction. For so many reasons that I do not need to elaborate on, I much prefer this scenario, as opposed to chaos after a bomb...into the chaos of mob justice.
The concern with people describing what they'd like to see done to this guy or why they're glad/satisfied/OK with whatever injuries he has is that many of us, myself included, don't just limit their opinions to these messageboards. You got out. You talk with your family. You talk with your friends. You tell your co-workers. You tell your kids. You cast votes. You sit on juries.
And sooner or later, the pernicious idea that vengeance IS justice sits in the minds of people who are able to deny due process. And when that happens, sooner or later, due process is denied in a case where the defendant truly could benefit from it (i.e. the wrongfully convicted).
What I've been arguing in this thread has nothing to do with whether I think this guy is guilty and deserves severe punishment (I do). It has everything to do with what I perceive as a concerning trend among people to allow emotion and hot-bloodedness to guide the things they say and do. Even in most cruel and awful cases, dispassionate reason must be our guide. Ask yourselves: is the benefit in capturing this guy that order and peace has been restored? Or are we happier because he's been punched, shot or injured?
I implore you: don't waste your breathe and energy and good nature wishing pain and suffering on a guy like this. He will be dealt with accordingly.
Take chaos and make it orderly.
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2023-08-31 Wrigley 2
2023-09-15 Fenway 1
Facts are easily ignored when emotions are running high.
Just remember it was a civilian that tipped the authorities to his location.
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
i dont know anyone with common sense that likes military in the street of the city..
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
Great article ...
"Life Is What Happens To You When Your Busy Making Other Plans" John Lennon
Another point, easier to find a 'fugitive' trying to run away when no one else is in the street, as opposed to this fugitive melting away in a crowd.
If people hadn't been evacuated or told to stay in, I'd hate to think what the whole 'pointing of fingers' would be if one or more citizens got hurt or killed by a potential grenade/bomb/gun.
They just didn't know what this guy had on him/with him.
Just a couple of thoughts....
Fantastic post.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
and authorities was the ones gave the phoyos to public to give them tips,for find the guy..
its all about the risk and responsibility..no one up at the fbi ,goverment want to take the blame that he didnt do everything he could to secure the city and not another civilian die
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”