Today's Random News

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

They could determine it by two small yield bombs that killed 3 people.
I'm pretty sure Oklahoma saw a worse bombing, and that didn't necessitate the shutting down of a city.
You could argue that the world isn't the same now as it was in 1995.
I would argue that you were right, but for different reasons.
It's so odd arguing against governmental control with you. It seems like you should be on the side screaming against letting fear dictate freedom.

---

The Oklahoma City bombing is a terrible analogy, because it was an attack with a specific target. It's a hell of a lot easier to secure hard targets than soft ones.

I'm also still somewhat waiting to hear if anyone has examples where rights may have actually been violated. I'd without a doubt feel differently in that case. Otherwise, this is the gay marriage debate where people make up rights so they can complain about not having them or having them taken away.

Soft Target: Noun
A person or thing that is relatively unprotected or vulnerable, esp. to military or terrorist attack.

I have to admit, I'd never heard of a "soft" or "hard" target before this bombing. I don't see the relevance. One is harder to blow up than the other. But both can and have been blown up. So what's the difference.
How is the marathon not a specific target?
How could they know that only the Murrah Federal Building was targeted? Maybe whoever blew it up had explosives at other places?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Some Stupid Japanese Name

Soft Target: Noun
A person or thing that is relatively unprotected or vulnerable, esp. to military or terrorist attack.

I have to admit, I'd never heard of a "soft" or "hard" target before this bombing. I don't see the relevance. One is harder to blow up than the other. But both can and have been blown up. So what's the difference.
How is the marathon not a specific target?
How could they know that only the Murrah Federal Building was targeted? Maybe whoever blew it up had explosives at other places?

---

What I mean is that there are way less federal buildings in Oklahoma than there are gatherings in MA.

But when the Fed building went down, the people in charge had no more idea as to whether there were more bombs around or not than the people in charge in Boston did.
Or is there a rule among terrorists that they can blow up one hard target, or several soft targets? I'm not sure of the terrorist code, so you'll have to fill me in.

It's a domestic versus foreign thing. Domestic terrorists are much more likely to hit hard targets, whereas foreign terrorists are more likely to go after multiple soft targets. It's because of their respective messages. Domestic guys typically want to basically protest the government, while the foreign groups just want chaos and fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Yoshi

Which rights were violated? I haven't seen a serious claim that the searches were not voluntary, and I don't believe curfews technically violate any right. I'm sure sleeve will magically appear in 3.5 seconds if I am wrong about that.

---

Depends on what you mean by "technically."

Are we playing FBI? My recollection is that McVeigh was caught even more quickly than these guys were. The Boston bombers had a chance to continue their crime spree and had rudimentary portable explosives.

There was a scare of a second bomb in Oklahoma and you'd better believe the area around it was secured for at least a couple of blocks.

I don't know why Boston was still locked down even when the cops knew this guy was in Watertown - which was fairly early.

Think of being forced to sit at home because some suspect of a crime was 5 miles away and the cops knew it. I'd be pissed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sleeve

Depends on what you mean by "technically."

---

That's a fair question, and I didn't have a specific definition in mind. It's an interesting application of the right to assemble. Obviously people couldn't physically gather during the search, but you could also argue that it didn't impede anyone's desire to be part of a club or whatever, because of the short duration. I don't know what the right answer is on that. I don't like the "but it's only for a few hours" argument when revoking rights, but I also think this was a reasonable action, give the circumstances.

What is your professional opinion on it, sleeve? If you had an MA license, is there a case here you'd pursue, assuming it fits the type of law you practice?

Unless I'm mistaken, it was a ten-hour lockdown undertaken after it was clear an armed and dangerous suspect was on the loose with no intention of going back to a life of peaceful anonymity. They didn't know if he had another car and I don't think they did more than inconvenience people, though I'm sure that some altercations happened, as they always do in these situations.

This is directed at nobody in particular, just some questions for reflection:

1. Had this affected only a very rich neighborhood, would there be a lot more jokes and generally not so much grumbling?

2. Just like we take it for granted that many Republicans secretly want President Obama to fail because he's Black, do you feel a good part of the discomfort about Boston is because some really want the cops to live up to the image of being abusive, heavy-handed pricks?

3. Do you feel some are mad that the Internet sleuths didn't outdo the feds and hand them the case with a bow on top?