MIT and Watertown Police dramas, right now. 1 officer killed, 1 at large. Oy.- Page 20

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 12:32pm

"But they didn't. They used bombs."

Oh. I must have missed that.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 1:06pm

Here's a think piece: What if the Tsarnaevs had used water balloons instead of real bombs?

Then the 14 amputees wouldn't have to be deciding between the basic $7,200 below-the-knee prosthesis or how to pay for the $90,000 "high-tech microprocessor-controlled full-leg model."

Either way, prosthetic legs need to be replaced every few years. and the limb sockets can go bad even before then. Those cost thousands of dollars each.

If the Tsarnaevs had used water balloons, then the hundreds of spectators--including little kids--wouldn't be facing lifelong psychological problems with anxiety and post-traumatic stress.

If only the Tsarnaevs had used water balloons, none of this would be necessary.

But they didn't use water balloons, Blanche. They used bombs. And ya ARE stuck in that chair.

I'm done with my think piece.


Health Care Costs for Boston Marathon Amputees Add Up Over Time

Updated On: 4/27/13 at 01:06 PM

[Kad]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 1:19pm

I think proposing questions of the sort that the article Ghostlight posted can be insightful about a wide range of issues. Dismissing them by making entirely false equivalences and turning them into farce is a kneejerk, rather blinded reaction.

Some hypotheticals are helpful and can point out connections, failings, or successes that aren't immediately apparent. I have to agree that I don't see what there is to become defensive or dismissive about. The article certainly isn't belittling the human cost of the attack in any way.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 1:27pm

For me (and me alone) the take-away of the article was: Do we feel differently about violence if it's brought about by guns than we do if it's brought about by bombs (and particularly when used by Muslims).

If your answer is no, as a nation we feel about bombs the same way we feel about guns, then I agree there's probably nothing of value in the article.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 1:28pm

And of course I can't speak for the author, but I didn't get the impression he was saying it would have been better had guns been used (in the way that yes, we can all agree water balloons would have been better for the victims).

Updated On: 4/27/13 at 01:28 PM

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 1:45pm

To the dead, and to those in their lives, does it matter if it were guns or bombs? In this case as the author pointed out guns very well could have caused more fatalities.
To me the fact of them being Muslim mean as little to me as Timothy McVeigh's religion.
I found them considering not reading Miranda Rights a bit frigtening. Perhaps, due to my lack of nowledge on the fine points of Due Process, I saw it as providing oppourtunities to have certian admissions deemed non admissible in court.

Updated On: 4/27/13 at 01:45 PM

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 1:53pm

"To the dead, and to those in their lives, does it matter if it were guns or bombs?"

Absolutely not. And I don't think that was any part of the writer's point.

I still don't know the fine points about pre-Miranda information. I'm gathering it's a pretty murky subject.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 2:01pm

Yes, Reginald, that is why I was not for them NOT reading him his rights.

[YouWantitWhen????]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 2:18pm

There is a public safety exception in Miranda, which I think was validly used in this case. One invoked by government the court would have to determine if there was proper justification for the delay IF the government wants to introduce the evidence at time of trial. Even if the courts find the public safety exception does not apply, the only consequence would be that the statements made by Little Douche when he was in custody by the authorities and before he was Mirandized would not be admissible.

What would be admissible is everything else - including his admission to the person he carjacked that he was the bomber.

In this instance, since we did not really know if this was an isolated attack or something coordinated, I think there was good reason to delay the reading of Miranda.

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 2:19pm

Yeah, I didn't like it either.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 4:15pm

To me the fact of them being Muslim mean as little to me as Timothy McVeigh's religion.

That's where the specifics of the case become particular. Did Timothy McVeigh act out of a sense of duty to his religion? If not, his religion matters little as a motive.

Did the older Tsarnaev brother act out of a misguided sense of duty to his religion? If so, was that misguided sense of duty fostered by his mother or by "Misha," the Armenian mentor who radicalized him (in Cambridge, not in Dagestan) and persuaded him to stop studying music because, Misha said, it was not right to make music or even listen to it in Islam.

If Tamerlan's religion was indeed a motive for him, then it does mean indeed something, and it's not being Islamophobic to pay attention to it. If his religion was incidental to his crime, then, as you say, it matters little.

And remember, the NY Times quoted Tamerlan's brother-in-law as saying that Tamerlan "was angry that the world pictures Islam as a violent religion.” (Apparently uttered sans irony.)

So he built a coupla bombs.

I was also struck by a feminist critique of the Massachusetts judge and jury that dismissed the case against Tamerlan for the domestic abuse claims, not by the wife whom he impregnated and abandoned after her conversion, but by the girlfriend he admitted slapping.

Her hypothetical, which I think is more intelligent than the one in the New Yorker, was "What if Tamerlan had been properly prosecuted for domestic violence? Maybe he would not have bombed the marathon."

And what of Tamerlan's three friends, including the dope dealer, who were brutally slain in a murder that remains unsolved?

Rather than ask, as does yet another think piece currently making the rounds of Twitter and Facebook, entitled "Are the Boston Bombers Just Douchebags," I'd like to see a think piece called "What If the Tsarnaev Brothers Were Homicidal Psychopaths?"

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 4:26pm

PJ, I agree with almost all your points.

But instead of seeing the question regarding the domestic abuse charge as "more intelligent," I see it as an equally intelligent but completely different hypothetical, seeking different information.

[suestorm]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 4:43pm

So douchebag or little douche is ok but monster or animal is not? I smell double standard.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 4:53pm

[FindingNamo]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 4:56pm

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 4:56pm

Here's a really, really worthwhile think piece by a Muslim-American: a runner, a father of two boys, roughly the same ages as Tamerlan and Dzhokhar:
THE GOOD LIFE: Who Is Greater?

[Reginald Tresilian]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 5:27pm

YWIW, thanks for the info. I find it reassuring.

And I certainly agree (always did) that the first priority, beyond anyone's legal rights, is public safety.

[suestorm]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 5:43pm

Your blanks prove to me you don't have an answer and can't rebuke

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 5:44pm

I was a little uncomfortable with them not reading him the Miranda rights (still am, though I do get the idea of the public safety exception), but an important thing to remember is this: just because they didn't read him his Miranda rights doesn't mean he doesn't have them. He still had the right to remain silent and the right to a lawyer.

[SNAFU]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 9:16pm

Sue, the blans mean you are not welcome here.

Updated On: 4/27/13 at 09:16 PM

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 9:18pm

I think of them as a palate cleanser.

[PalJoey]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 10:27pm

In Russian wiretaps, the mother becomes more and more of a key figure.
CBS NEWS: Boston bombing suspect Tamerlan Tsarnaev caught on Russia wiretap

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 10:36pm

According to that report, the younger brother had no gun and as a result, did not fire on the police from the boat or shoot himself there. There was no "exchange of gunfire". Has any news outlet ever verified that he ran over his brother?

[ghostlight2]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 10:36pm

double post.

I'm a little shocked by the news (if true) that he didn't have a gun while on the boat. Volley upon volley of gunfire went into that boat - on an unarmed man?

That's...disturbing.



Updated On: 4/27/13 at 10:36 PM

[siny]

Posted: 4/27/13 at 11:39pm

But they did not know that he was unarmed. Or that he did not have explosives strapped on him.

Updated On: 4/27/13 at 11:39 PM