# The Boston Marathon Bombing Debate Thread **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 15, 2013, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799 "2013-04-15T23:21:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 15
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/281 "2013-04-20T16:46:22Z")
> [@theR](#): > > That is what they’re doing, no? No. The _only_ purpose of the public safety exception is to allow the authorities to have their cake and eat it too. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 4:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/282 "2013-04-20T16:55:03Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > No. The _only_ purpose of the public safety exception is to allow the authorities to have their cake and eat it too. Your posts imply that you think they can use the pre-Miranda interrogation stuff in court. They can’t. So, no, there is no having one’s cake and eating it, too, here. ---
**Author:** ![Grumman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/43a26b/32.png) [@Grumman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grumman)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/283 "2013-04-20T16:58:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Well, you need to do more than just “say” something around here. Why is it not sound? > > Well, that’s exactly what is happening. Are you under the impression that they can use any answers he gives them in court? They can’t. Is it too much to ask that you read the thread before asking these stupid questions? As I already said, the reasoning is not sound because if you don’t already have enough evidence to convict, you don’t have enough evidence to conclude that he has answers that _must_ be extracted immediately. And as **Condescending Robot** already quoted, the point of the “public safety exception” is specifically that “the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, **will be admissible in evidence**.” ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 5:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/284 "2013-04-20T17:37:59Z")
> [@Grumman](#): > > Is it too much to ask that you read the thread before asking these stupid questions? As I already said, the reasoning is not sound because if you don’t already have enough evidence to convict, you don’t have enough evidence to conclude that he has answers that _must_ be extracted immediately. That’s ridiculous. First off, in general, there is no way to know in advance if there is enough evidence to convict. You make a judgement about that, but you could very well be wrong. Secondly, public safety is not contingent on having enough evidence to convict. That is an absurdly high bar to set. However, in this particular case, there does appear to be plenty of evidence to convict him, so you’re wrong about this particular case.. > [@](#): > > And as **Condescending Robot** already quoted, the point of the “public safety exception” is specifically that “the defendant may be questioned without warning and his responses, though incriminating, **will be admissible in evidence**.” There are significant restriction about what can be used in court. If they ask the guy if there is another bomb set to go off, and he says yes and tells them where, then that is probably admissible. If they ask him about where he learned to make bombs, almost certainly not. But, as noted above, this is all moot because the case agains these guys is very strong. The police don’t need more evidence to convict him. They need to know if there is further public safety from guys who just detonated two bombs in public and have all sorts of bomb making materials in their home. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/285 "2013-04-20T18:06:31Z")
> [@CoolHandCox](#): > > Agreed. It might poison a third unknown party’s role, but if it saves lives its worth it. Maybe some nice torture too, then? ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 6:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/286 "2013-04-20T18:56:07Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Maybe some nice torture too, then? No one in this thread has suggested torture. Can you address the arguments being made rather than throwing up a strawman? ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/287 "2013-04-20T19:32:45Z")
I am happy they captured the last suspect. I am saddened by the loss for so many people. But, I believe there is a healthy debate which must be conducted about how they were apprehended. Murders occur daily in the United States. Granted, the vast majority of murders do not have such wide implications and garner this type of media coverage, but I guarantee there is currently a person, not apprehended, who has killed 3 or more people and wounded many others in their criminal life. I have watched the coverage. A city shut down, house to house searches conducted, police presence in every aspect of life… I have no knowledge on how they conducted those house to house searches, but it was obvious they were not in “hot pursuit”, thereby entering a home to immediately apprehend a subject. Two men, two bombs, could shut down a major city for 24+ hours, allow massive home searches and suspend autonomy for thousands. I am generally a law and order guy, and I firmly believe the people involved in this manhunt were good and decent people trying to protect. But, how many bombings would it take for us to accept this as normal? If tomorrow, another bomb went off in Boston, would we tolerate a continued state of affairs similar to the last 24 hours? Sometimes, when these things happen, it is ok to chalk them up to extraordinary circumstances, but I also think it begs the question of just how close we are as a society to surrendering individual autonomy out of fear. ---
**Author:** ![Leaffan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/leaffan/32/299_2.png) [@Leaffan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaffan)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/288 "2013-04-20T19:58:16Z")
> [@Lucky\_Mike](#): > > I am happy they captured the last suspect. I am saddened by the loss for so many people. > > But, I believe there is a healthy debate which must be conducted about how they were apprehended. > > Murders occur daily in the United States. Granted, the vast majority of murders do not have such wide implications and garner this type of media coverage, but I guarantee there is currently a person, not apprehended, who has killed 3 or more people and wounded many others in their criminal life. > > I have watched the coverage. A city shut down, house to house searches conducted, police presence in every aspect of life… > > I have no knowledge on how they conducted those house to house searches, but it was obvious they were not in “hot pursuit”, thereby entering a home to immediately apprehend a subject. > > Two men, two bombs, could shut down a major city for 24+ hours, allow massive home searches and suspend autonomy for thousands. > > I am generally a law and order guy, and I firmly believe the people involved in this manhunt were good and decent people trying to protect. > > But, how many bombings would it take for us to accept this as normal? > > If tomorrow, another bomb went off in Boston, would we tolerate a continued state of affairs similar to the last 24 hours? > > Sometimes, when these things happen, it is ok to chalk them up to extraordinary circumstances, but I also think it begs the question of just how close we are as a society to surrendering individual autonomy out of fear. As a Bostonian, you were free to leave your home at any time. It was a voluntary lock down. And as you could tell just about 100% of the residents thought this was a good idea and cooperated with the police. No one surrendered any rights and three levels of police worked together to ensure no more bombings occurred and justice could be served for the victims. I call this awsomeness. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/289 "2013-04-20T19:58:33Z")
So this is what I’ve gathered from watching the news. Arson = criminal Serial killer / spree shooter = criminal Poison = criminal, unless it’s something scary like ricin/anthrax, then it’s terrorism Bombs = terrorism ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/290 "2013-04-20T20:00:15Z")
Those are good points, but people are not randomly targeting for killing everyday, so most of us don’t think we need special protection, every day, from random killers. Most murderers know their victims. And most murderers don’t go on killing sprees. It’s pretty clear these guys were not done. Now, could the lockdown have been more localized? I think so. Bu ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/291 "2013-04-20T20:06:50Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > So this is what I’ve gathered from watching the news. > Arson = criminal > Serial killer / spree shooter = criminal > Poison = criminal, unless it’s something scary like ricin/anthrax, then it’s terrorism > Bombs = terrorism No, all of those things could be terrorism or they could not be depending on the motive and the results of the actions. Not sure why you think that oversimplification has any validity. Terrorism generally includes a political motive, but you commonly hear that a serial killer, on the lose, has terrorized a community. Bombs planted at the end of the Boston Marathon, targeting random people is terrorism and criminal. They are not mutually exclusive, you know. ---
**Author:** ![Lucky\_Mike](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de053/32.png) [@Lucky\_Mike](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lucky_Mike)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/292 "2013-04-20T21:20:05Z")
> [@Leaffan](#): > > As a Bostonian, you were free to leave your home at any time. It was a voluntary lock down. And as you could tell just about 100% of the residents thought this was a good idea and cooperated with the police. No one surrendered any rights and three levels of police worked together to ensure no more bombings occurred and justice could be served for the victims. > > I call this awsomeness. Thank you for the response. This is an excellent anecdote of cooperation and response and it is good to hear. Were there any people who did not consent to a house search and the search still occurred? i honestly do not know. ---
**Author:** ![marshmallow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@marshmallow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/marshmallow)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/293 "2013-04-20T21:28:05Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No, all of those things could be terrorism or they could not be depending on the motive and the results of the actions. Yeah, but that isn’t what I observe in the news. They were calling it terrorism right away. If these guys had mowed people down with guns and somehow got away very few media people would be calling it terrorism, IMO. If there’s no political motivation it’s not terrorism either, which could be the case. Plus there’s all those times when the media calls attacks on military targets terrorism. Most people I know irl called these attacks terrorism too. Because they used bombs, presumably, but I didn’t take a survey. ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/294 "2013-04-20T22:13:20Z")
Several members have missed the Public Safety exception to _Miranda_ cited in reply #260. Here is the full Supreme Court opinion: [467 U.S. 649 NEW YORK v. QUARLES (1984)](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=467&invol=649) (from the opinion): > [@](#): > > …\*\*there is a “public safety” exception to the requirement that Miranda warnings be given before a suspect’s answers may be admitted \*\*[467 U.S. 649, 650] into evidence, and the availability of that exception does not depend upon the motivation of the individual officers involved. **The doctrinal underpinnings of Miranda do not require that it be applied in all its rigor to a situation in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety.** The nature of the case being discussed here strikes me as tailor-made for a Miranda exception. Let us hope the judicial bed-wetting faction doesn’t get in the way. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/295 "2013-04-20T22:28:22Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > No one in this thread has suggested torture. Can you address the arguments being made rather than throwing up a strawman? Hi, sorry that you don’t know how syllogisms work. He said “if it saves lives its worth it.” Clearly, his standard is that anything which the FBI claims will “save lives” is not restrained by the Constitution or human morality. The fact that this implies torture is acceptable is precisely my point. ---
**Author:** ![CoolHandCox](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/coolhandcox/32/16233_2.png) [@CoolHandCox](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CoolHandCox)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/296 "2013-04-20T22:34:13Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Hi, sorry that you don’t know how syllogisms work. He said “if it saves lives its worth it.” Clearly, his standard is that anything which the FBI claims will “save lives” is not restrained by the Constitution or human morality. The fact that this implies torture is acceptable is precisely my point. Clearly. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/297 "2013-04-20T22:44:06Z")
> [@Condescending\_Robot](#): > > Hi, sorry that you don’t know how syllogisms work. He said “if it saves lives its worth it.” Clearly, his standard is that anything which the FBI claims will “save lives” is not restrained by the Constitution or human morality. The fact that this implies torture is acceptable is precisely my point. :rolleyes: He made a statement about a specific procedure. You chose to extrapolate that beyond the context of the discussion. Which you took to even more ridiculous heights in your latest post. There was no “syllogism” offered-- just your increasingly absurd strawman. ---
**Author:** ![Condescending\_Robot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a183cd/32.png) [@Condescending\_Robot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Condescending_Robot)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/298 "2013-04-20T22:50:26Z")
“Straw man” means arguing against something not put forward. The argument put forward is “if it saves lives its [sic] worth it.” I am showing what the consequences of that belief are. (I know this is the Internet where “straw man” means “magic word to dismiss anyone disagreeing with me,” but I thought you would like to know what the term means in English.) ---
**Author:** ![Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aji_de_gallina/32/260_2.png) [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Aji_de_Gallina)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/299 "2013-04-20T23:03:22Z")
Is there a deadline for this exception or is it like Guantánmo but with non-rhotic accents? ---
**Author:** ![colonial](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/34f0e0/32.png) [@colonial](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/colonial)\ **Post date:** [April 20, 2013, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799/300 "2013-04-20T23:12:20Z")
> [@Aji\_de\_Gallina](#): > > Is there a deadline for this exception or is it like Guantánmo but with non-rhotic accents? (non-rhotic? You mean as in NE US “whez da cah”?) There was a CA case noted in the reply #260 cite where court found the Miranda exception was in still effect 64 days after the presumed date crime had occurred. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799.md?page=14) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-boston-marathon-bombing-debate-thread/655799.md?page=16)