Active Users:409 Time:30/04/2025 11:53:23 PM
More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice? Joel Send a noteboard - 20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM
I find it difficult to believe the Secret Service would respond to a credible public threat against a US Congressman with "Sorry, we're only legally authorized to protect the President, VP, candidates for those offices and their families, so we can't help you--but we'll request an executive order on your behalf and call your local police to let them know an Al Qaeda hit squad is on the way! " Perhaps I'm wrong about that; the meaning of of "legally authorized" makes all the difference here, and if that makes it ILLEGAL for them to provide anyone else protection (as bizarre as that sounds) I'll eat my words. ONLY mine though; I read and fully understood your statement, as my response at the time indicates, yet you incorrectly stated I misread you because YOU misread ME. Yeah, I understand your frustration QUITE well; hopefully you're beginning to grasp mine....

Legally authorized does not mean Illegal in the way you are taking it, no.

Joel, I repeat, SS has no specific power over congress, I already gave you the actual text of their mandate. The US Capitol Police are charged with protecting congress, and yes they do have concurrent jurisdiction. If the SS caught in a phone call about a threat to anyone's life, same as any other LE, they'd contact the people who had jurisdiction, because we have jurisdiction for many reason, one of which is those people are best equipped to handle the problem, for Local LE 'equipped' means 'there and numerous' which is why they so often consult with federal agencies who have specific applicable expertise, this is one of the reasons for concurrent jurisdiction. The SS is not an omnipresent group of super-troopers. They're pretty small, every federal department has its own LE branch for that matter, from the VA to the US Park Police. They all have jurisdictions, they all can do like any LE and stop major crimes in action, they all can contact the LEOs who have jurisdiction, they can all, from local PD up, arrest under hot or 'fresh' pursuit. I hear your frustration, because if the case you offer as an example were possible it would merit frustration, but its not, hence my frustration at having to tell someone how jurisdiction works. This is not a debate over how it functions or should function, this is simple cold hard fact and your basically saying "Oh yeah, well if cops can't arrest outside their jurisdiction and see a crazed gunmen then they can't do anything", the n-teenth time I say "Yes, of course they can, the law totally permits this". Forgetting geography for the moment, any LE can arrest in hot pursuit or if they have a warrant (typically only in state) but any and all officers can always arrest someone using citizens arrest powers - that covers any felony in action, they can act if they witness a felony - when a cop from NY busts someone in PA for waving around a gun at a fair they were attending off duty, it just counts as a citizens arrest. This is done all the time, its the legal route for out of jurisdiction emergency situations. Of course SS has a big jurisdiction, they are Federal Officers, so hot pursuit is irrelevant in their case.

None of the current rules allow any absurd cases like you propose, the SS is not the agency responsible for protecting congressmen, that's the US Capitol Police and whichever other LE groups have geographic jurisdiction. This is totally unrelated to not bothering to call in a crime. So if the SS stumbles across a credible threat to a congressmen they can act as appropriate, but not because the person is a member of congress, they can do the same for you or me. LE, in any form, generally do not ignore felonies, this does not mean that they can or do send their own LEOs to deal with a case that's not under their mandate. If SS stumbles across a group threatening to kill me, my congressmen, and POTUS, but decides the threat to POTUS was unreal but the one on me and my congressmen was, they can contact our local PD and the US Capitol Police, that one of the two fellows involved was an elected official is relevant only because they regularly work in proximity to USCP. There exact procedure is likely to vary from LE group to LE group and based on the severity and immediacy of the issue. Almost like someone with common sense wrote the rules. Jurisdictional infighting is a real thing, but generally over-dramatized and hyped in TV and novels for, well, good plot. As things are, if a threat came down from them about a congressmen (or anyone else) fairly soon thereafter a local uniformed LEO would roll up to that persons house to make sure they were okay at that moment, because they are nearest, and with immediacy removed jurisdiction would be sorted out. And if the tumbled out to a terrorist hit squad in action they would do what any other LE would do, contact everybody, though I believe nowadays they would contact HomeSec who would do this for them and coordinate. This would generally involve local LE, because they have jurisdiction and lots of people and guns right there.

You are welcome to continue objecting to this, I don't know why or on what grounds, to the best of my knowledge this is simple fact and at worst a LE expert might adjust a piece.

That WAS the original claim, you may recall; now we're debating who'd respond, which indicates we agree SOMEONE would. Saying, "local police would respond, not the Secret Service" rather misses my point that a prompt and serious response WOULD be made. I think it's implausible so say the Secret Service would simply notify others of a credible threat against a Congressman then leave it to them, but you seem to be disputing the details of my argument, not its import. Regardless, I didn't miss your statement that local law enforcement rather than the Secret Service would respond, I explicitly acknowledged it in full while disagreeing and you missed the acknowledgement.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.

Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!

LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Reply to message
OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 16/01/2011 12:18:22 PM 2079 Views
Why are they calling it "blood libel"? - 16/01/2011 12:23:47 PM 933 Views
Because if the facts were as they represent them those words would be applicable. - 16/01/2011 12:49:22 PM 1112 Views
It's not entirely clear to me whether you're aware of this or not, but... - 16/01/2011 01:12:22 PM 1159 Views
That's why I said, "popularized". - 16/01/2011 01:46:52 PM 1101 Views
I think Alan Dershowitz dealt with this nonsense already - 16/01/2011 02:34:10 PM 1469 Views
Interesting. I didn't realize it was so wide-spread. - 16/01/2011 03:10:28 PM 1011 Views
She wasn't even the first to use the term that week either - 16/01/2011 10:10:35 PM 1037 Views
I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 10:18:54 PM 1026 Views
Re: I don't know that "expert" has anything to do with it. - 16/01/2011 11:30:38 PM 941 Views
Oh please don't you start to - 17/01/2011 02:34:43 PM 884 Views
I for one hadn't noticed it before. - 17/01/2011 10:25:57 PM 1067 Views
it was used here and nobody commented - 17/01/2011 10:37:07 PM 952 Views
LOL, I totally forgot that got posted here - 17/01/2011 10:54:26 PM 998 Views
It's funny you should say that... - 18/01/2011 10:32:59 PM 1038 Views
Re: It's funny you should say that... - 19/01/2011 03:29:52 PM 1016 Views
It was permissible to ignore until it became a rallying cry. - 20/01/2011 04:27:23 PM 1055 Views
A rallying cry is hardly illegal - 20/01/2011 05:32:45 PM 1103 Views
I never said it was. - 20/01/2011 06:59:39 PM 1201 Views
Oh, I noticed that one alright. - 18/01/2011 10:25:23 PM 874 Views
compared to the way similar terms are used? - 19/01/2011 06:58:02 PM 1018 Views
I meant I hadn't seen it used in different contexts before. - 19/01/2011 07:35:00 PM 999 Views
Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 10:24:09 PM 1085 Views
Re: Indeed, my response to Legolas references Wikipedias quotation of him. - 16/01/2011 11:09:21 PM 1117 Views
Again, Giffords specifically made the connection between Palins imagery and an attack on her. - 17/01/2011 12:53:08 AM 1266 Views
That means precisely nothing - 17/01/2011 03:59:07 PM 953 Views
It means everything. - 18/01/2011 08:34:55 PM 1213 Views
I'm trying to understand your logic - 19/01/2011 12:50:28 AM 823 Views
There are two points: - 19/01/2011 02:47:48 AM 1028 Views
Re: It means everything. - 19/01/2011 05:55:02 PM 851 Views
That's simply illogical. - 20/01/2011 01:08:51 AM 1236 Views
the old step one steal underwear step three profit argument - 19/01/2011 06:01:14 PM 1109 Views
that is some twisted and bizarre logic - 17/01/2011 02:38:41 PM 1054 Views
So I am a little confused on something... - 16/01/2011 02:38:59 PM 1102 Views
Palin putting Giffords district in the crosshairs and Giffords implying at the time she feared this - 16/01/2011 11:21:36 PM 1237 Views
If I understand what you are saying correctly... - 17/01/2011 07:07:56 AM 981 Views
I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 08:33:47 AM 993 Views
Re: I'm sorry you so badly misunderstand. - 17/01/2011 04:24:01 PM 1052 Views
The Secret Service does guard Congressmen, just not all of them automatically. - 18/01/2011 09:13:39 PM 870 Views
No, they don't - 18/01/2011 10:19:34 PM 1065 Views
Really? Cannoli says differently, and I believe he's right on that one. - 18/01/2011 10:50:51 PM 1144 Views
You seem to be reading what you want to from what I said - 19/01/2011 01:27:32 PM 1000 Views
I read what you said & understood it as you restate here, hence I referenced local police (twice) - 20/01/2011 02:15:17 AM 1035 Views
The problem here is your ignoring normal policing powers to concoct an absurdity - 20/01/2011 04:20:25 PM 1094 Views
More absurd than the notion such incitement warrants no notice? - 20/01/2011 05:42:47 PM 1117 Views
Your shifting your original premise, *again* - 20/01/2011 08:24:18 PM 964 Views
No, you're simply missing the point of it. - 20/01/2011 11:09:57 PM 980 Views
There is no point - 21/01/2011 12:22:30 AM 1011 Views
If I had no point I wouldn't bother, but fair enough. - 21/01/2011 01:20:32 AM 1258 Views
Uh...Last I checked conservatives didn't list the Communist Manifesto as a favourite book. - 16/01/2011 03:05:07 PM 1275 Views
You're awesome at missing points, aren't you? - 16/01/2011 07:26:30 PM 1022 Views
where is the accountability for those committing slander? - 17/01/2011 02:52:40 PM 944 Views
Libs hate Mein Kampf and We the Living; conservatives hate the Communist Manifesto: He's neither. - 16/01/2011 10:06:02 PM 970 Views
conseartives hate Mein Kampf and liberals stil read the Communist Manifesto - 17/01/2011 02:57:22 PM 961 Views
That first line is says it all. - 18/01/2011 09:34:06 PM 1041 Views
Nazis had more in common with communist then capitalist - 19/01/2011 04:10:09 PM 1150 Views
The founder of fascism called it "the merger of corporate and national power". - 20/01/2011 02:51:09 AM 1036 Views
and that is supposed to mean something? - 20/01/2011 06:06:18 PM 1038 Views
YOU are cherry picking. - 20/01/2011 07:50:21 PM 974 Views
It is to be expected that this site would be libtard central... - 16/01/2011 05:23:53 PM 1249 Views
See my reply to Dragonsoul above. - 16/01/2011 07:30:40 PM 1087 Views
Yeah, your first was better - 16/01/2011 09:48:58 PM 901 Views
Palin didn't really have anything to do with this, but it makes sense she's blamed. - 16/01/2011 10:19:51 PM 973 Views
Pretty much. - 16/01/2011 11:44:35 PM 1044 Views
Did they ever catch the person(s) that vandalized Gifford's office? *NM* - 17/01/2011 03:30:36 AM 478 Views
politcal offices are vandalized on a regular basis *NM* - 17/01/2011 02:41:29 PM 448 Views
She only asked if they caught the guy, she didn't accuse anyone, Sarah. - 18/01/2011 11:27:18 PM 929 Views
OK Olberman when did I imply otherwise? *NM* - 19/01/2011 02:48:41 PM 487 Views
"Political offices are vandalized on a regular basis". - 20/01/2011 03:16:39 AM 1121 Views
Took you this long, huh? - 17/01/2011 01:53:31 PM 877 Views
I am sick of the desperate attempts of liberals to find a way to use a tragedy - 17/01/2011 02:31:18 PM 908 Views
I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:23:47 PM 871 Views
Re: I'm just curious. - 17/01/2011 03:28:04 PM 1020 Views
I always said I'd do that after Bush was re-elected. - 18/01/2011 11:52:45 PM 894 Views
like I said a matter of faith - 17/01/2011 04:27:51 PM 884 Views
I find it interesting... - 17/01/2011 05:31:54 PM 1035 Views
I mention her looks solely because... - 20/01/2011 02:30:42 PM 921 Views
If slander, not mine, Giffords' (at least you don't err like Palin and say, "libel" ). - 18/01/2011 11:14:23 PM 1090 Views
mark you calendar today is the day Joel offically went around the bend into insanity - 19/01/2011 05:28:06 PM 904 Views
A mirror will show me who's to blame? On whom have I put a crosshairs? - 20/01/2011 03:23:43 AM 946 Views
so it is all a matter of faith for you - 20/01/2011 05:48:44 AM 897 Views
No, it's fairly straight forward logic. - 20/01/2011 03:25:56 PM 1010 Views
sorry Joel but you haven't - 20/01/2011 03:29:49 PM 809 Views
It's there; in this thread alone people from both sides of the aisle have acknowledged that. - 20/01/2011 05:51:21 PM 894 Views
only in your does the connection exisit - 20/01/2011 06:39:35 PM 937 Views
No. - 20/01/2011 07:35:09 PM 1015 Views
dude wake up - 20/01/2011 08:54:33 PM 1150 Views
So in your opinion... - 17/01/2011 05:27:58 PM 887 Views
How 'bout simply color coding them? - 18/01/2011 11:21:03 PM 936 Views
Why not just blame Giffords? - 17/01/2011 06:07:14 PM 1228 Views
Indeed, why not; Sarah Palin does. - 18/01/2011 06:58:01 PM 1064 Views
The irony of this thread is not lost on me. - 19/01/2011 04:09:01 PM 1074 Views
Exactly. *NM* - 19/01/2011 04:51:40 PM 532 Views
Bizarre thread for that Soapbox - 19/01/2011 05:17:58 PM 817 Views
You missed the point, obviously. - 19/01/2011 06:04:23 PM 924 Views
so you are saying it is the same old RAFO - 19/01/2011 06:47:24 PM 999 Views
The thread has admittedly degenerated - 19/01/2011 07:02:12 PM 849 Views
Check your NB. Noted you a response. *NM* - 19/01/2011 07:04:58 PM 514 Views
That I knew it would go this way is why I avoided looking closely for so long. - 19/01/2011 11:20:44 PM 1079 Views
Hey, now. I have to step in. - 20/01/2011 04:44:49 PM 1104 Views
I'm just saying a significant link can be demonstrated. - 20/01/2011 07:07:27 PM 1149 Views
Re: OK, I'm Officially Sick of the "Blood Libel" BS. - 22/01/2011 05:49:44 PM 1089 Views

Reply to Message