Secret Service: "You don't have any legal rights."

[Guest Some Guy]

I'd think at 16 years old, if I was just questioned by the Secret Servicemen for questionable comments I had made, I would probably be too scared to tell a lie concerning the situation for quite some time.

I'd think that, at 16, one wouldn't wish death on the President.

Honestly, I don' think they did. I think they just used poor judgement. I also believe there was no need for the use of the secret service.

So by your reasoning the Secret Servicemen who allegedly said that the kids had no rights just used poor judgment. No harm no foul.

 

 

Honestly does everyone here forget that when you're 16 you aren't a total retard and can comprehend the consquences or your actions most of the time? I could when I was that age. I realize that some 16 year olds are more mature than others but all of them should know that wishing death on the president of the United States in public is not at all acceptable behavior. When I was 14 or so my friends and I used to joke around with the cops who walked around my town's center about stupid shit like this and the cops told us that you can legally say you wanted the President dead but it could be construed as a threat and you could get in trouble. Mind you this was about 1995, well before Colombine, 9/11, etc...

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

It's because of Columbine.

 

Before Columbine, while it was hardly inconceivable that a teenager could snap and shoot up a school, it wasn't nearly in the public's consciousness as it was after that. All of a sudden, after Columbine, this sort of thing became a NATIONAL CRISIS that must be addressed immediately, or so the reaction went.

Don't forget about the teenager in the Beltway Sniper shootings.

[Guest NoCalMike]

So by your reasoning the Secret Servicemen who allegedly said that the kids had no rights just used poor judgment. No harm no foul.

Exactly. I am not organizing a march on behalf of these students. I am not littering the streets "for the cause" I don't really feel sorry for these students perse. All I said is that this situation blew up probably more than it needed to.

[Guest Vyce]

It's because of Columbine.

 

Before Columbine, while it was hardly inconceivable that a teenager could snap and shoot up a school, it wasn't nearly in the public's consciousness as it was after that.  All of a sudden, after Columbine, this sort of thing became a NATIONAL CRISIS that must be addressed immediately, or so the reaction went.

Don't forget about the teenager in the Beltway Sniper shootings.

Right. A LOT of people did a double take when it turned out that Malvo was actually the shooter.

 

The Columbine kids shot and killed many of their schoolmates. It sounds like these retards were just being dumbasses. That's pretty typical.

 

But then we get back to the same problem we had earlier in this thread - how were the Secret Service agents to know this was just a dumbass joke?

 

You say that it should have been obvious, I say maybe not so.

[Guest The Hamburglar]

Well, if I were an American citizen I'd be a little troubled that this is the sort of thing the Secret Service checks up on, seeing as its completely retarded. But then again, I live in a country where the government apparently employs people to infiltrate terrorist groups and instead of eliminating them, actually run the terrorist group and aid it in its campaign of sectarian violence. So on second thoughts, this isn't so bad.

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

But then we get back to the same problem we had earlier in this thread - how were the Secret Service agents to know this was just a dumbass joke?

Well, my implication is that the teacher should have known that.

 

 

No, you're right in that I don't want the Secret Service to blow stuff off as jokes unless they involve Elvis being alive or UFOs abducting people.

[Guest My Eyebrow is on fire]

The real issue at hand here seems to be how do we know what was said by the SS to the kids? I don't know if any reasonable conclusion can be drawn based on the information given.

 

cancer's argument seems to be "The SS wouldn't say those things because I know them and I just know they wouldn't say that, darn it." I would probably reject cancer's personal testimony in this instance.

 

Just because many people lie when afraid doesn't mean that the kids are lying. Rejecting their testimony based on the fact they are young and scared is uncalled for.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

For some reason I don't find convincing you of the integrity of the Secret Service to be an overwhelming imperative. Either you know better than to question people in that position on the basis of some improbable accusations from a couple of dumbfuck teenagers, or you don't. In the latter case, it really doesn't matter what you believe.

[Guest My Eyebrow is on fire]

Improbable or impossible? This serious accusation deserves investigation, since there's a witness. Dismissing any complaint against the SS because "they should know better" is not a very good reason at all.

 

Why are you in haste to ignore this? And why are you treating this news article like a court document? Because the reporter was ambiguous (not necessarily inconsistent, mind you) on a few details doesn't mean you throw it away as rubbish after a 5 minute analysis.

 

Ok. I'll concede that the kids are probably lying if you'll concede that somebody needs to check it out regardless of the probabilities.

 

EDIT:

 

For some reason I don't find convincing you of the integrity of the Secret Service to be an overwhelming imperative.

 

Please, you dedicated an entire post to it. Your "I give my personal guarantee" argument failed to persuade me. Don't respond with "Well I didn't consider it important to convince you." It's juvenile.

Edited May 20, 2003 by My Eyebrow is on fire

[Guest Cancer Marney]

For some reason I don't find convincing you of the integrity of the Secret Service to be an overwhelming imperative.

Please, you dedicated an entire post to it.

False. This is your second post in this thread. The post you quoted was the only reply I have ever made to you in this thread.

 

Your "I give my personal guarantee" argument failed to persuade me.

Boo fucking hoo. And where did I EVER say anything like that? I don't give "personal guarantees" about anything I don't have firsthand information on. Quote chapter and verse, verbatim. Don't fucking try to stick words in my mouth and then argue with your own submoronic inventions. Go masturbate offline; in this forum we DEBATE instead, and we don't do that with straw fucking men.

 

Don't respond with "Well I didn't consider it important to convince you."  It's juvenile.

So are you.

 

Improbable or impossible?

The first.

 

This serious accusation deserves investigation, since there's a witness.

The only "witnesses" were the parties involved.

 

Dismissing any complaint against the SS because "they should know better" is not a very good reason at all.

How about because NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED?

 

I'll concede that the kids are probably lying if you'll concede that somebody needs to check it out regardless of the probabilities.

Who should "check it out?" And how? Polygraph tests? (Unreliable.) Truth serum? (Illegal and unconstitutional, as well as unreliable.) Long interrogations of all parties involved to catch one or more in a lie? For what reason, pray? If you want internal investigators to check on ALL possibilities regardless of their probabilities I hope you're willing to personally fund a 50000% budget increase for the OPR. I sure as hell wouldn't waste so much as one taxpayer cent on this kind of crap. I'd much rather let the agents unfortunate enough to have been stuck with this detail get on with their jobs.

[Guest My Eyebrow is on fire]

False. This is your second post in this thread. The post you quoted was the only reply I have ever made to you in this thread.

I don't give "personal guarantees" about anything I don't have firsthand information on. Quote chapter and verse, verbatim.

 

::clears throat::

 

I am also assuming that based on the fact that every member of the Secret Service I have ever had the pleasure of working with has been courteous, mature, extremely intelligent, and UTTERLY professional. I'm talking not a hair out of place and not a cough nor a twitch unless it's voluntary. These people have some of the most important jobs in the world. They train hard, they're trained by the best, and they're trained for years. I find it difficult, to say the least, to believe that any member of the Service would say anything that mindbogglingly stupid.

 

What was that? That was a personal, practical example which has no value but usually confuses people (“The Personal Guarantee” Technique). AND you were speaking in a public forum for the “benefit” of all readers, of whom I was one. You were talking to me, GameCop, Dames whoever. You’re nitpicking, leaving red herrings all over the place. Stop it.

 

So are you [juvenile].

Go masturbate offline;

10 points for honesty. Minus 20 for appalling conduct, especially from a government employee who has as high a pay grade as you do.

 

How about because NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED?

 

A SECRET SERVICE AGENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY “WE OWN YOU YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.” They are not allowed to say that. They are not allowed to say that. It is unethical AND DISGUSTING, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT. A secret service agent who uttered that phrase should be punished for not performing his job correctly. They enforce rules, they do not make them up as they go along – even you admitted that to utter that phrase is “mindbogglingly [sic] stupid.” There is a possible wrongdoing with a possible witness – an investigation is quite appropriate. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

 

What is YOUR REAL ISSUE HERE, cancer? Why are you vehemently defending these agents you don’t even know. It’s because you’re a government agent and letting the camaraderie get in the way of good judgment. You believe deep down that the agents should be allowed to overstep their boundaries with “good” cause, don’t you? These pesky rules make your job difficult but it’s of paramount importance they’re enforced. It’s ethics, cancer, and ethics separates us from the barbaric nations.

 

[/soapbox]

 

The only "witnesses" were the parties involved.

"When one of the students asked, 'do we have to talk now? Can we be silent? Can we get legal council?' they were told, 'we own you, you don't have any legal rights,'" Felson says.

 

The reporter was ambiguous as to how the teacher knew what was said. There’s a possibility the teacher would at least CLAIM to be an eye-witness – he should be questioned. An investigation is necessary to try to find out what happened. Now. Assuming it will be futile and pointless is a horrible reason to ignore this incident and smacks of either laziness or cover-up.

 

submoronic inventions

“Moronic” would have been a sufficient enough flame.

 

EDIT: Typos.

[Guest Vyce]

Why do some of you no-sell my posts?

 

That's rhetorical, BTW.

 

Look, to Eyebrow Chicken Guy:

 

A SECRET SERVICE AGENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY “WE OWN YOU YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.” They are not allowed to say that. They are not allowed to say that. It is unethical AND DISGUSTING, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT. A secret service agent who uttered that phrase should be punished for not performing his job correctly. They enforce rules, they do not make them up as they go along – even you admitted that to utter that phrase is “mindbogglingly [sic] stupid.” There is a possible wrongdoing with a possible witness – an investigation is quite appropriate. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

 

I am a law school student. I have studied Criminal Procedure. While that does NOT make me an expert on the matter, I know more about it than, say, the average ordinary citizen.

 

Now, if you read some of my posts IN THIS THREAD!!! you will see that I have explained that IF the SS agents did say that (and it's in dispute that they did - part of why this thread is 3 pages long and growing), than they likely violated these kids 5th amendment rights (and would have failed to give Miranda warnings as well - but Miranda is tied up with the 5th am.). BUT, in those same posts, I have explained that THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL. Because ultimately the kids weren't charged with anything, thus any potential 5th am. violations that occurred are pretty much moot.

 

So be outraged if you will, but realize that NOTHING will likely come from this.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I find it difficult, to say the least, to believe that any member of the Service would say anything that mindbogglingly stupid.

What was that? That was a personal, practical example which has no value but usually confuses people (“The Personal Guarantee” Technique).

Don't "Personal Guarantee Technique" me. You put the words "I give my personal guarantee" in QUOTES. Putting an idiomatic sentence in QUOTES and attributing it to someone does not denote some sort of "technique." It was a straw man. Plain and simple. Because if you actually READ what you quoted, you might notice that I said

I find it difficult... to believe

that this alleged incident ever occurred. In other words, based on my experience with other agents, and based on my knowledge of their training and their average level of professionalism, I assigned a probability to the story and I expressed it. I did NOT offer any "personal guarantees" of any sort. Not in so many words, and not as part of any bullshit "technique." You were caught out. Take it like the whining little nancy-boy you are and move on when you can.

 

AND you were speaking in a public forum for the “benefit” of all readers, of whom I was one.  You were talking to me, GameCop, Dames whoever.

When I said that I had no interest in convincing you, immediately after your first reply, I specifically meant YOU. That is why my reply was clearly and unequivocally addressed to YOU. Let me know if this is still confusing, and I'll try to find a jackhammer with which I can pound it through your skull.

 

10 points for honesty.  Minus 20 for appalling conduct, especially from a government employee who has as high a pay grade as you do.

I don't futz around on these boards in my professional capacity, as the disclaimer in my member profile makes absolutely clear. I'll share any informed opinions that I have, and I'll clarify and correct what I can, but that's the maximum extent to which my job relates to these message boards. In my private life I'll conduct myself as I please. It doesn't reflect on my office in any way.

 

A SECRET SERVICE AGENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY “WE OWN YOU YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.”

No Secret Service agent ever did say anything of the sort, as far as I know. If you have evidence to the contrary, kindly present it.

 

There is a possible wrongdoing with a possible witness

Who's the witness? Someone who threatens the life of the President has little credibility with me. And, I suspect, with most Americans.

an investigation is quite appropriate.  Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

Because it wouldn't be appropriate at all. It would be a waste of time, money, and energy.

 

You believe deep down that the agents should be allowed to overstep their boundaries with “good” cause, don’t you? These pesky rules make your job difficult but it’s of paramount importance they’re enforced.   It’s ethics, cancer, and ethics separates us from the barbaric nations.

I'll ignore the sanctimonious, pompous, preachy, and speculative personal attack since it's irrelevant to the argument. You're welcome.

 

Assuming [an investigation] will be futile and pointless is a horrible reason to ignore this incident and smacks of either laziness or cover-up.

Right. We bully teenage brats all the time and then engage in massive cover-ups.

 

In other news, a pregnant woman who recently flew over Roswell gave birth to a two-headed lizard.

 

submoronic inventions

“Moronic” would have been a sufficient enough flame.

Not for your posts.

[Guest EricMM]

So let me get this strait:

 

The actual witnesses to the interview/interrogation by the Secret Service people were the Secret Service themselves and the two kids? Was anyone else present? If not, who is this quote coming from, and if so, who are they and are they the ones giving this quote?

[Guest My Eyebrow is on fire]

It was a straw man. Plain and simple.

 

I'm tired of this shit. I'll withdraw the "personal guarantee" LABEL - but that still does NOT change the meat of the matter. The tactics of the secret service agents were in question. You were asserting that they never made the horrendous statements in question:

 

No Secret Service agent ever did say anything of the sort

 

I don't see a "maybe" or a "probably." You've made several statements like this throughout the thread. You're stating with 100% certainty. That's a guarantee. If it wasn't a guarantee, then you'll have no problem conceding that an investigation is needed. Here is how you backed up your argument:

 

assuming that based on the fact that every member of the Secret Service I have ever had the pleasure of working with has been courteous, mature, extremely intelligent, and UTTERLY professional. I'm talking not a hair out of place and not a cough nor a twitch unless it's voluntary. These people have some of the most important jobs in the world. They train hard, they're trained by the best, and they're trained for years. I find it difficult, to say the least, to believe that any member of the Service would say anything that mindbogglingly stupid.

 

A practical example from your own personal experience. It proves nothing at all other than you think the chaps in the SS are keen. Secret Service Agents aren't above error and certainly aren't above the law. There are 2 teenagers who can testify they've been bullied, and if the teacher was indeed there (or at least can testify to being there) then this is more than enough to raise question marks above the agents' heads.

 

When I said that I had no interest in convincing you, immediately after your first reply, I specifically meant YOU. That is why my reply was clearly and unequivocally addressed to YOU.

 

Stop splitting hairs. The argument above boils down to The secret service agents did not say what they said because you've met some and they're great. You meant for people to see your response and be convinced by it. Otherwise, you would have PM'd the person.

 

I can kill you whenever I please... but not today.

Let me know if this is still confusing, and I'll try to find a jackhammer with which I can pound it through your skull

[insert other countless homicidal/psychopathic ravings throughout folder

In my private life I'll conduct myself as I please. It doesn't reflect on my office in any way.

 

I beg to differ, unless you were in the postal service. Speaking of threatening lives:

 

Who's the witness? Someone who threatens the life of the President has little credibility with me. And, I suspect, with most Americans.

 

Definitely. I guess we have to ignore what those kids say then. Both of their Felony Terroristic Threats convictions nullifies their testimonies, and with good reaso...wait hold on.

 

::clicks to the article::

::reads::

 

Oh wait, they weren't convicted... or even charged. They didn't "threaten" anyone. At least, that's how the SS saw it. Their testimony is acceptable. As a matter of fact, I don't think their alleged statements were any less psychopathic than the ones you make daily or even below your avatar, cancer.

 

I've said it twice already. Their testimony along with the teacher's is enough to cause investigation into the agents' procedures. If they have nothing to hide they would have no problem cooperating.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

You were asserting that they never made the horrendous statements in question:

No Secret Service agent ever did say anything of the sort

I don't see a "maybe" or a "probably." You've made several statements like this throughout the thread. You're stating with 100% certainty. That's a guarantee.

Seriously, are you blind or just painfully stupid? If you finish the sentence you quoted, it reads:

No Secret Service agent ever did say anything of the sort, as far as I know. If you have evidence to the contrary, kindly present it.

(emphasis added)

 

I'd really like to know how "as far as I know" translates to "100% certainty" or "a guarantee" in your confused little mind.

 

your own personal experience... proves nothing at all other than you think the chaps in the SS are keen.

It was never intended to "prove" anything. I stated that, in my experience, the Secret Service is composed of mature, intelligent, and conscientious professionals.

Secret Service Agents aren't above error and certainly aren't above the law.

No one has said they are.

 

You meant for people to see your response and be convinced by it.

Congratulations; you have successfully grasped the idea of debate.

 

In my private life I'll conduct myself as I please. It doesn't reflect on my office in any way.

I beg to differ, unless you were in the postal service.

Differ all you please. I'm not obliged to act as a government spokesman every waking second, regardless.

 

Oh wait, they weren't convicted... or even charged.  They didn't "threaten" anyone.  At least, that's how the SS saw it.  Their testimony is acceptable.

Not to me. They did indeed threaten the President, according to their own statements. The fact that it was not determined to be a threat the Service was interested in pursuing in criminal courts does not make it any less of a threat.

 

As a matter of fact, I don't think their alleged statements were any less psychopathic than the ones you make daily or even below your avatar

It's a line from an X-Files episode, you blithering cretin.

 

Their testimony along with the teacher's is enough to cause investigation into the agents' procedures.

And you were criticising mefor

treating this news article like a court document?

The "testimony" of the retards is worthless since they're interested parties. The "testimony" of the teacher is worthless if it's based on hearsay. Next.

 

If they have nothing to hide they would have no problem cooperating.

This is the part I love. If there's nothing to hide, why won't They let us into Area 51? If there's nothing to hide, why don't They come clean about JFK? If there's nothing to hide, why won't They just admit to the alien autopsies?!

 

Give me a break. We'd have to create a whole new government department just to jack you cretins off all bloody day. Try setting up the headquarters in West Virginia and I'm sure you'll get Robert C Byrd in your corner.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

In any case, as Vyce pointed out so clearly, all of this is the sheerest stupidity from beginning to end. The cretins in question were never charged with any crime. Maybe their feelings were hurt.

 

Cry the nation a fucking river.

[Guest Cover of Darkness]

The amount of real info this article gives is just over nil. We don't have an exact quote pf what they said, we have a *very* odd comment from a Secret Service officer, who if did say that should be fired for being an idiot. That's not how you talk to teenagers, you should have more sense then that. They should also have the sense to recognize that even if a 16 year old wanted to kill the President the mathematical odds say it's nearly impossible.

 

1. How many have us have spoken without thinking when WE were 16? What should have happened is that teacher should have lectured them about the consequences of saying something like that. He also should've known kids well enough to know that those kids probobly don't have the resources to put a hit on Bush.

 

2. The Secret Service Agent should have known that a quote like that, would cause a shitstorm. I think he wasn't thinking before he spoke either.

[Guest Spicy McHaggis]

When I said that I had no interest in convincing you, immediately after your first reply, I specifically meant YOU. That is why my reply was clearly and unequivocally addressed to YOU.

 

Stop splitting hairs...

 

 

Oh wait, they weren't convicted... or even charged.

1. Your ENTIRE argument is predicated on splitting hairs.

 

2. IF, if, if, if the Secret Service guys said, "you don't have any rights, we own you" it doesn't matter because there was no charge or conviction.

[Guest Midnight Express83]

For the 50th time asked,

 

Who said what? What did the teens say? What did the Service say? Who quoted them? Who is giving this info? What did the teacher say?

 

All of this is missing. So you can not judge anyone but the kids. If they didn't threaten the president or vice president, then they wouldn't have the SS after them. But, who is quoting the Service? Is it another kid or the teens themselves, or is it the staff of the school?

[Guest Bannable Offense]

BTW - just as a historical sidenote, wasn't the young man who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, essentially starting WWI, a teenager?  I believe he was only 19 years old.  Anyone confirm this?

Gavrilo Princip was born in 1894. So he was either 19 or 20 when he assassinated Ferdinand in 1914, depending on his birthdate, which I'm not certain about.

[Guest Cover of Darkness]

BTW - just as a historical sidenote, wasn't the young man who assassinated Archduke Ferdinand, essentially starting WWI, a teenager?  I believe he was only 19 years old.  Anyone confirm this?

Gavrilo Princip was born in 1894. So he was either 19 or 20 when he assassinated Ferdinand in 1914, depending on his birthdate, which I'm not certain about.

And if the Archduke was protected by the most elite US goverment agency, wasn't travelling in an open topped car, and was in a car that could withstand being multiple automatic weapons whilst simultanious having the Secret Service defend every rooftop and guard every street that point would be somewhat... moot.

[Guest newblood03]

i just think the teacher took what they said too seriously like a dumbass kid is gonna try to go where the president is....most likely he dosent know shit about th president(but anything is possible)

[Guest TheMikeSC]

What was that? That was a personal, practical example which has no value but usually confuses people (“The Personal Guarantee” Technique). AND you were speaking in a public forum for the “benefit” of all readers, of whom I was one. You were talking to me, GameCop, Dames whoever. You’re nitpicking, leaving red herrings all over the place. Stop it.

 

So are you [juvenile].

Go masturbate offline;

10 points for honesty. Minus 20 for appalling conduct, especially from a government employee who has as high a pay grade as you do.

 

How about because NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED?

 

A SECRET SERVICE AGENT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO SAY “WE OWN YOU YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS.” They are not allowed to say that. They are not allowed to say that. It is unethical AND DISGUSTING, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SAY THAT. A secret service agent who uttered that phrase should be punished for not performing his job correctly. They enforce rules, they do not make them up as they go along – even you admitted that to utter that phrase is “mindbogglingly [sic] stupid.” There is a possible wrongdoing with a possible witness – an investigation is quite appropriate. Why is it so hard for you to admit that?

 

What is YOUR REAL ISSUE HERE, cancer? Why are you vehemently defending these agents you don’t even know. It’s because you’re a government agent and letting the camaraderie get in the way of good judgment. You believe deep down that the agents should be allowed to overstep their boundaries with “good” cause, don’t you? These pesky rules make your job difficult but it’s of paramount importance they’re enforced. It’s ethics, cancer, and ethics separates us from the barbaric nations.

 

 

The reporter was ambiguous as to how the teacher knew what was said. There’s a possibility the teacher would at least CLAIM to be an eye-witness – he should be questioned. An investigation is necessary to try to find out what happened. Now. Assuming it will be futile and pointless is a horrible reason to ignore this incident and smacks of either laziness or cover-up.

Hmm, so we're to assume that agents of a gov't entity that has NEVER had a SINGLE agent be involved in ANYTHING that even REMOTELY resembled a POTENTIAL controversy are lying and that these dumb kids are honest?

 

Do you not see a fundamental intellectual disconnect with that mindset? You're allowing your blatant and obvious disdain for the President to make you assume that the gov't, presently, is evil.

 

I know some people have this inane belief that youth don't lie --- but those people have NO clue how reality works. 16-year olds lie about EVERYTHING. It's not exactly a well-kept secret to those of us who reside on Earth.

 

You complain because Marney uses her personal experience --- experience that I've NEVER heard contradicted in my life, mind you --- while we're supposed to just agree with you that the agents said just that.

 

Let's take a brief look at the most BASIC fundamental truths of law enforcement personnel --- SUSPECTS LIE WHEN SCARED. They lie A LOT and, by and large, lie quite badly. And God knows teens --- who, again, lie like rugs anyway --- will lie through their teeth to cover their own butts.

 

I'll say this --- if what the kids said is true, it goes against the well-known experience who has EVER dealt with the Secret Service in the agency's combined history. So, are the kids' allegations POSSIBLE?

 

Yup.

 

Are they PROBABLE? Good God, no.

 

I just love that you gripe about her covering up for the agents, but seem to have no concept that doubting the kids isn't exactly a HUGE stretch. She has a far easier case to make than you do.

-=Mike

[Guest Crazy Dan]

My whole take on this is that this was a huge waste of time. I trully believe that Two kids saying something stupid should not have taken secret service men comming out to investigate. What those kids said was not classy by no means, but I highly doubt that they were ever going to actually kill the President. I also wouldn't be suprised if the kids couldn't even find DC on a map.

 

I think the teacher who called the feds over reacted to the whole thing. Kids will say stupid things, and this is just another example of that. But it did not warrant a investigation from the government. When there is a high possibility that there is terrorist sleeper cells in this country which should have our full attention, instead time was wasted investigating two punks. Where are the priorities here? The director who assigned the two agents, should have told the teacher to deal with it, and stop wasting his time. But no. At the same time, if the agents did mutter threats like that and not explain that the kids could have legal counsil, then that is two cases of very un-professional behavoir.

 

Does any one else think that two FBI agents tough talking two high school kids seem a little over the top and pathetic? I guess that really showed them. I agree with Eric S', over on 411mania, whole assessment of the issue. We have become very paranoid and scared to the point of illogical bahavoir. Now if these two kids were adult males and of Middle Eastern dissent, and someone overheard them talking about killing the president, then that would warrant a call to the FBI. Unfortunately, this won't be the last incident of this.

[Guest TheMikeSC]

My whole take on this is that this was a huge waste of time. I trully believe that Two kids saying something stupid should not have taken secret service men comming out to investigate. What those kids said was not classy by no means, but I highly doubt that they were ever going to actually kill the President. I also wouldn't be suprised if the kids couldn't even find DC on a map.

 

I think the teacher who called the feds over reacted to the whole thing. Kids will say stupid things, and this is just another example of that. But it did not warrant a investigation from the government. When there is a high possibility that there is terrorist sleeper cells in this country which should have our full attention, instead time was wasted investigating two punks. Where are the priorities here? The director who assigned the two agents, should have told the teacher to deal with it, and stop wasting his time. But no. At the same time, if the agents did mutter threats like that and not explain that the kids could have legal counsil, then that is two cases of very un-professional behavoir.

 

Does any one else think that two FBI agents tough talking two high school kids seem a little over the top and pathetic? I guess that really showed them. I agree with Eric S', over on 411mania, whole assessment of the issue. We have become very paranoid and scared to the point of illogical bahavoir. Now if these two kids were adult males and of Middle Eastern dissent, and someone overheard them talking about killing the president, then that would warrant a call to the FBI. Unfortunately, this won't be the last incident of this.

The Secret Service handled this the same as they would handle ALL potential threats on the President (or former Presidents). They investigated it and, when they were satisfied that there was nothing here, dropped it.

 

People keep on saying they talked "tough" to the kids. We have NO idea what was said --- just that what the kids said doesn't exactly jibe with the history of the Secret Service.

 

Did the Secret Service overreact? Nope. Again, who can say when a threat is legit and when it is not? Their job is to assume ALL threats are legitimate and investigate. The Secret Service's job is not to break up terrorist cells --- their ONLY job is to protect the President and is family indefinitely.

 

Eric S. is a putz. Has always been a total putz --- and a mediocre writer, to boot. This is how these things have ALWAYS been handled.

 

If I made a threat against a President on this board, I'd be checked out. I wouldn't gripe because I know it would happen.

 

If your job is to PROTECT, you MUST assume that ALL threats are legit.

-=Mike