I really hope those attending the Boston Marathon make it through this.

[bassinplace]

Nah...having a terrorist amongst us in this township without knowledge of what firearms or explosives he had on his person, and which nearby backyard he was holed up in was FAR more scary last friday than your theories of liberty.

I'm sorry you had to go through that and I'm glad you and your family are the rest of your community are now safe, but that hardly negates anyone else's concern or right to an opinion.

 

[michael_atw]

I'm often surprised at the number of people who either don't know or don't understand this.

They know it, they are aware of it...they understand it. They just don't care.

That's because we have a vengeance culture. People in general (not just Americans) act on vengeance over reasonable processes. People are arrogant enough to make the personal determination that another human being has less rights and that they are endowed or justified in that decision that they can be one to deprive the rights.

 

[nukes_da_bass]

I'm sorry you had to go through that and I'm glad you and your family are the rest of your community are now safe, but that hardly negates anyone else's concern or right to an opinion.

I'll give you one fresh $100 bill if you can find anyone who owns or lives in a house that is located within the perimeter that did not happily surrender their house to search based on constitutional request as opposed to having been ordered to surrender their dwelling to a forced search. There is no police agency that was participating in this debacle that needed to order anybody to submit their dwelling to a search. Anyone who had knocked on my door who had the proper identification would've been allowed to search my dwelling gratefully!

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Nah...having a terrorist amongst us in this township without knowledge of what firearms or explosives he had on his person, and which nearby backyard he was holed up in was FAR more scary last friday than your theories of liberty.

That's a fair point, but the issue is that these sorts of tragedies will never be 100% preventable. It's a sad realism of the modern world that we live in. However, we do have the ability to protect ourselves from our own government who might try to take our liberties and freedoms away from us. They might try to do it under the guise of protecting us from people who wish to do us harm, but no matter how much we give up it will never be enough to protect us from everything out there. That is my concern.

I'll give you one fresh $100 bill if you can find anyone who owns or lives in a house that is located within the perimeter that did not happily surrender their house to search based on constitutional request as opposed to having been ordered to surrender their dwelling to a forced search. There is no police agency that was participating in this debacle that needed to order anybody to submit their dwelling to a search. Anyone who had knocked on my door who had the proper identification would've been allowed to search my dwelling gratefully!

Then why not allow citizens to make the choice if and when the time comes up to wave their constitutional right?

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Then why not allow citizens to make the choice if and when the time comes up to wave their constitutional right?[/QUOTE]


I will repeat since I live here and no one seems to quite understand what happened: all search was done on a voluntary basis. You don't have to believe me but I was here. Police knocked on doors, if people answered the door police asked the people if they could search.
Watertown police this week are considered absolute heroes!! I am as opposed to illegal search and seizure and forced entry as anyone of you ...as a Libertarian you can trust that statement.

 

[jmattbassplaya]

Then awesome! I'm very happy your family was kept safe.

 

[aborgman]

"with the exception being when determining if the crime was premeditated or not". Not based on what they otherwise think or believe. Please read before commenting.

Why is it OK for criminals to be judged on their thoughts with respect to premeditation, but not judged on their thoughts with respect to other aspects of intent?

Why a special exception for THAT particular version of "judging on thoughts" and not others?

 

[michael_atw]

I'll give you one fresh $100 bill if you can find anyone who owns or lives in a house that is located within the perimeter that did not happily surrender their house to search based on constitutional request as opposed to having been ordered to surrender their dwelling to a forced search. There is no police agency that was participating in this debacle that needed to order anybody to submit their dwelling to a search. Anyone who had knocked on my door who had the proper identification would've been allowed to search my dwelling gratefully!

What I find interesting is they stopped the lockdown before the guy was caught.

And not for the same reasons as others. I find it interesting because it reveals the government had no interest in doing this stuff for nothing.

 

[bassinplace]

Why is it OK for criminals to be judged on their thoughts with respect to premeditation, but not judged on their thoughts with respect to other aspects of intent?

Why a special exception for THAT particular version of "judging on thoughts" and not others?

So a proper sentence can be meted out. Manslaughter vs. murder, for example.

 

[MatticusMania]

What I find interesting is they stopped the lockdown before the guy was caught.

And not for the same reasons as others. I find it interesting because it reveals the government had no interest in doing this stuff for nothing.

I have to agree with this.

 

[aborgman]

So a proper sentence can be meted out. Manslaughter vs. murder, for example.

Why doesn't this hold for other factors of intent?

 

[AmpedSilence]

Yes.

In the United States, criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. Even if there are a thousand witnesses to a crime, the defendant has a right to a trial, and to due process of law.

I understand that from a legal perspective, but I thought that the discussion earlier was about labeling someone who commits an act of terror a terrorist.
Same way someone who steals your wallet on the street is a robber. Do they really have to stand trial in order to be labeled a "robber"?

 

[nukes_da_bass]

I understand that from a legal perspective, but I thought that the discussion earlier was about labeling someone who commits an act of terror a terrorist.
Same way someone who steals your wallet on the street is a robber. Do they really have to stand trial in order to be labeled a "robber"?

In the American judicial system, which has its roots in the British common law system, you must referred to the accused as the "alleged" bomber the "alleged" terrorist or the "alleged" robber Until a potential conviction is achieved.

 

[bassinplace]

Why doesn't this hold for other factors of intent?

Because incriminating a person based on thier thoughts or beliefs is an infringment on a person's so-called "god given rights", the stated rights that the American constitution is founded upon, don't you think so?

 

[Toastfuzz]

I'll give you one fresh $100 bill if you can find anyone who owns or lives in a house that is located within the perimeter that did not happily surrender their house to search based on constitutional request as opposed to having been ordered to surrender their dwelling to a forced search. There is no police agency that was participating in this debacle that needed to order anybody to submit their dwelling to a search. Anyone who had knocked on my door who had the proper identification would've been allowed to search my dwelling gratefully!

Did they forcibly enter houses of those who weren't home without permission or warrant? Thats what I'd be concerned about. And the fact that you can't argue against it, because then you're "supporting terrorism."

For sake of argument, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. The area I live in is fairly high-crime and fairly blue-collar. You can be sure if the kid was hiding out in my neighborhood, most of the population would be searching and protecting their OWN property, from both terrorists AND police. You also disregard the fact that anyone who didn't consent to a search would IMMEDIATELY be suspect #1 and would be forceably searched anyway, if not even arrested, just for flexing their constitutional rights.

I dated a girl from Boston who was terrified of the fact that I was a gun owner and regular shooter. Totally different mindset.... I respect your opinion, but understand we don't all look at it that way. Some of us would rather protect ourselves and our own families than put all of our trust in the state.

 

[David Jayne]

What I find interesting is they stopped the lockdown before the guy was caught.

Huh?
They were looking in the wrong place. The mayor lifted the lockdown. Henneberry walked out and found him in his boat. Where's the conspiracy?

 

[nukes_da_bass]

Did they forcibly enter houses of those who weren't home without permission or warrant? Thats what I'd be concerned about. And the fact that you can't argue against it, because then you're "supporting terrorism."

For sake of argument, I get what you're saying, but I disagree. The area I live in is fairly high-crime and fairly blue-collar. You can be sure if the kid was hiding out in my neighborhood, most of the population would be searching and protecting their OWN property, from both terrorists AND police. You also disregard the fact that anyone who didn't consent to a search would IMMEDIATELY be suspect #1 and would be forceably searched anyway, if not even arrested, just for flexing their constitutional rights.

I dated a girl from Boston who was terrified of the fact that I was a gun owner and regular shooter. Totally different mindset.... I respect your opinion, but understand we don't all look at it that way. Some of us would rather protect ourselves and our own families than put all of our trust in the state.

It's a standing offer $100 that's how confident I am at the police the FBI CIA the NBI any other agency that was involved in the right thing in Watertown and the surrounding area. I am also proponent of responsible gun ownership I support the Second Amendment I wouldn't bother owning a gun here in Massachusetts because I don't really have the right here to defend myself or my property so why bother?

 

[macaroni tony]

What I find interesting is they stopped the lockdown before the guy was caught...

Huh?
They were looking in the wrong place. The mayor lifted the lockdown. Henneberry walked out and found him in his boat. Where's the conspiracy?

This thread is increasingly difficult to follow but...I think....michael atw is saying the same thing as you are when he says this

not for the same reasons as others. I find it interesting because it reveals the government had no interest in doing this stuff for nothing.

 

[Febs]

Because incriminating a person based on thier thoughts or beliefs is an infringment on a person's so-called "god given rights", the stated rights that the American constitution is founded upon, don't you think so?

There is a difference between prosecuting someone based on their thoughts or beliefs, on one hand, and taking intent into consideration when determining whether someone's acts constitute a crime. I think that distinction is getting lost in the discussion between you and aborgman. You are correct when you argue that thoughts and beliefs by themselves do not give rise to criminal liability, but intent or mental state generally is taken into consideration when determining whether actions constitute a crime. In fact, there are many crimes that are defined specifically with reference to a particular mental state.

Burglary, for example, is typically defined as the unauthorized entering a building or dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime. So, if I enter your house because I forgot my glasses, misread the house number, and thought I was entering my own home, that's not burglary. However, if I enter your house to steal your TV, it is.

Battery is another example. Suppose you and I are playing a game of baseball. You are the pitcher and I am the batter. As I swing at one of your nasty curve balls, my bat slips out of my hands and hits you. Is that a crime? No. I get the bat back, and the catcher whispers to me that you slept with my wife. In my anger, I throw my bat at you and it hits you again. Is that a crime? Yes. We have two similar actions, but in one instance, it is a crime, and in the other, it isn't. What's the difference? Intent.

 

[bassinplace]

There is a difference between prosecuting someone based on their thoughts or beliefs, on one hand, and taking intent into consideration when determining whether someone's acts constitute a crime. I think that distinction is getting lost in the discussion between you and aborgman. You are correct when you argue that thoughts and beliefs by themselves do not give rise to criminal liability, but intent or mental state generally is taken into consideration when determining whether actions constitute a crime. In fact, there are many crimes that are defined specifically with reference to a particular mental state.

Burglary, for example, is typically defined as the unauthorized entering a building or dwelling for the purpose of committing a crime. So, if I enter your house because I forgot my glasses, misread the house number, and thought I was entering my own home, that's not burglary. However, if I enter your house to steal your TV, it is.

Battery is another example. Suppose you and I are playing a game of baseball. You are the pitcher and I am the batter. As I swing at one of your nasty curve balls, my bat slips out of my hands and hits you. Is that a crime? No. I get the bat back, and the catcher whispers to me that you slept with my wife. In my anger, I throw my bat at you and it hits you again. Is that a crime? Yes. We have two similar actions, but in one instance, it is a crime, and in the other, it isn't. What's the difference? Intent.

Maybe. In your examples, at least the first one, I would say the difference is action, not intent. In your first example one is simply trespassing and the other is burglary. The crime is labeled based on the activity taking place, not the thoughts of the person doing them. In the second example one is an accident and the other is assault. There you've got a point, but that's where premeditation comes into play, like I was saying.