Isn't it actually *illegal* to question a minor without a parent or child advocate present? Or is that just for the police, FBI, and other law-abiding lawkeeping agencies?
This happened to a kid at my high school. That would have been the first President Bush.
Why do people get surprised by this? I was relatively certain that we all knew you aren't, in fact, allowed to say things like that. It has little to do with the First Amendment, since we should also all know that you aren't covered for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, for instance.
At the heart of it all, there are far more constructive ways to "vent frustration" than making retarded drawings for your MySpace page.
I'm not actually surprised that the kid was questioned about it; as silly as it may seem, they really do have to investigate any of that sort of thing that's brought to their attention.
What surprises me is that they pulled her out of class, and questioned her without a parent present. As I say above, I'm fairly certain it's illegal to do that to a minor.
Friend of mine used to work at a homless shelter. They had all kinda unstable guys who would send threats to the whitehouse and congress. Usually after the first interview or so, the following ones would be something like "Hey, is this death threat and box of powertools and stuffed armadillos from george smith? it has the shelter return address" "Sigh, yeah, hes still our paitent, ill talk with him." "Alright, ill add it to the file."
I think we all need to remember, for the moment, that the Office of "President of the United States of America" will not always be filled by George W. Bush.
I feel very strongly about issues of national security, as well as First Amendment rights, but I can also extricate those from the very reasonable policy to treat every threat to the President's safety as if it were real.
It just makes sense, and we've been doing it for a while now. Let's not all flip out just because the guy currently occupying the office is a worthless dolt.
Which makes it a great way to cow the masses cheaply and effectively. Voice protest and maybe government goons will publicly humiliate you. *clap* *clap* *clap* *bravo*
The unfortunate thing with a democracy is the democraticly elected leaders (or at least the ones that seem to be elected that way) will be able to do just about anything, if they all support each other, and have enough time.
You're not sure why it makes sense for the Secret Service to track down and question people who have made threats against a President?
It's because, even if only one out of every thousand threats is real, that doesn't absolve them from investigating the 999 that aren't. It's their job to take these things seriously. Lord knows I can imagine the hoopla if there were an assassanation (or attempt) and the press later announced that the person responsible had placed his or her plans online and that the SS had ignored it.
What I find repulsive is that this administration clearly takes every potential threat to high office holders seriously, no matter how slight the actual danger, yet they didn't rate our nation's national security nearly so highly. If they had, 9/11 very likely never would have happened.
I dunno. A picture of a dagger stabbing him and the words "Kill Bush" can certainly be seen as a threat. At the very least, it's a potential incitement.
I think that if they'd taken it seriously once they talked to her, the conversation would have been longer than fifteen minutes. I also think they were obligated to at least have the conversation, no matter what they seriously thought of the threat level.
The RCMP is hardly the equivalent to the Secret Service. I'm not sure if Canada has an equivalent to this peculiarly American group of humorless men with guns.
One thing you may not be clear on is that this behavior isn't unique to the current President. The Secret Service has as their priority the protection of the POTUS; had they found out about anyone doing or saying anything similar regarding Bush I, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Ford, Nixon or Eisenhower their response would have been exactly the same: track down the source and assess the threat.
That is one of the two functions they serve in our government. I am not sure what you're saying is inappropriate, exactly; should they have not talked to her? Not tracked down the source of the violent message? Because it was violent, regardless of the age of the girl.
If a person is, say, arguing in a bar, and they use the name of the person they're arguing with and add "kill kill die die", that can actually be considered simple assault under British Common Law, which serves as the basis for both the American and the Canadian legal systems.
And, yes, I suspect that if you put up a site with a picture of a dagger stabbing the PM, along with the words "Kill Harper", you'd get a visit from *someone*--that's if it ever got noticed. If you do it on a friggin' MySpace webpage, it's pretty likely to get noticed eventually.
There's also this aspect: A message is found on the internet, saying 'Kill Bush'. This message is on the Myspace page of someone purporting to be a 14-year-old girl. Fine, well and good. In fact, we're pretty sure we've tracked down the girl and can find her - but we're not positive it's her, we can't be SURE that this is actually a 14-year-old girl and not some group that actually has plans to kill the President.
So we track down the girl, ask her 'did you do this', and find out why. Fifteen minutes really isn't very long - about enough to determine 'Yes, she did this, no, there isn't a threat' and dismiss it.
Say we find this 14-year-old girl and she says 'What? I've never even heard of myspace, what are you people on?' - then there might be a problem that'd bear further investigation.
As fugaciouslover says, this agency has as it's single overriding directive the protection of the President; that requires every possible angle to be examined and eliminated in any sort of investigation.
I don't decry them for doing their job; my sole issue is that it was done without informing her parents or allowing them to attend the interview.
The Powers That Be get shitloads of crazy nonsense threats every day. It's much harder to investigate 'Blow up Montana' then it is to investigate, 'I, Stupid Girl, Want To Kill Bush'.
The reason it's inadmissible is because the accused's rights are violated. Violating rights is illegal; however, this may only apply to police. Secret Service agents may not be bound by Miranda.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 04:49 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 05:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 06:31 pm (UTC)Why do people get surprised by this? I was relatively certain that we all knew you aren't, in fact, allowed to say things like that. It has little to do with the First Amendment, since we should also all know that you aren't covered for yelling "Fire!" in a crowded building, for instance.
At the heart of it all, there are far more constructive ways to "vent frustration" than making retarded drawings for your MySpace page.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 06:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 07:01 pm (UTC)What surprises me is that they pulled her out of class, and questioned her without a parent present. As I say above, I'm fairly certain it's illegal to do that to a minor.
-K
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 07:02 pm (UTC)Cops can't do it, but that's about all I know.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 07:54 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 08:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 08:38 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 09:19 pm (UTC)I feel very strongly about issues of national security, as well as First Amendment rights, but I can also extricate those from the very reasonable policy to treat every threat to the President's safety as if it were real.
It just makes sense, and we've been doing it for a while now. Let's not all flip out just because the guy currently occupying the office is a worthless dolt.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 10:07 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 10:11 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 10:13 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 11:45 pm (UTC)It's because, even if only one out of every thousand threats is real, that doesn't absolve them from investigating the 999 that aren't. It's their job to take these things seriously. Lord knows I can imagine the hoopla if there were an assassanation (or attempt) and the press later announced that the person responsible had placed his or her plans online and that the SS had ignored it.
What I find repulsive is that this administration clearly takes every potential threat to high office holders seriously, no matter how slight the actual danger, yet they didn't rate our nation's national security nearly so highly. If they had, 9/11 very likely never would have happened.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-15 11:48 pm (UTC)She never made a threat to the president though.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:06 am (UTC)I think that if they'd taken it seriously once they talked to her, the conversation would have been longer than fifteen minutes. I also think they were obligated to at least have the conversation, no matter what they seriously thought of the threat level.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 02:28 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:15 am (UTC)One thing you may not be clear on is that this behavior isn't unique to the current President. The Secret Service has as their priority the protection of the POTUS; had they found out about anyone doing or saying anything similar regarding Bush I, Clinton, Carter, Reagan, Ford, Nixon or Eisenhower their response would have been exactly the same: track down the source and assess the threat.
That is one of the two functions they serve in our government. I am not sure what you're saying is inappropriate, exactly; should they have not talked to her? Not tracked down the source of the violent message? Because it was violent, regardless of the age of the girl.
If a person is, say, arguing in a bar, and they use the name of the person they're arguing with and add "kill kill die die", that can actually be considered simple assault under British Common Law, which serves as the basis for both the American and the Canadian legal systems.
And, yes, I suspect that if you put up a site with a picture of a dagger stabbing the PM, along with the words "Kill Harper", you'd get a visit from *someone*--that's if it ever got noticed. If you do it on a friggin' MySpace webpage, it's pretty likely to get noticed eventually.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 03:25 am (UTC)So we track down the girl, ask her 'did you do this', and find out why. Fifteen minutes really isn't very long - about enough to determine 'Yes, she did this, no, there isn't a threat' and dismiss it.
Say we find this 14-year-old girl and she says 'What? I've never even heard of myspace, what are you people on?' - then there might be a problem that'd bear further investigation.
As
I don't decry them for doing their job; my sole issue is that it was done without informing her parents or allowing them to attend the interview.
-K
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 04:31 am (UTC)It may be symbolic, but in the end that's what any government's legitimacy is.
So that kind of thing should be taken as seriously as possible.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:14 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:15 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:17 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 05:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 11:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-16 04:30 pm (UTC)Idiot.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-17 01:19 am (UTC)From watching cop shows, it appears to be more the latter.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-17 01:22 am (UTC)Yeah, raging competence, there. They sure were taking it very seriously, waiting half a fricking year to do so.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-10-17 03:47 am (UTC)