Apparently, at one hospital it was just at the shift change, so all the early shift doctors and nurses stayed to work with the second shift ones. If you were working trauma day in and day out in a big city hospital you would be prepared every day for the grisly cases coming in - car accidents, gunshot wounds, stabbings, etc. The issue here would likely be one of not becoming overwhelmed by the scale, and also whether you personally had to worry about your own family members being involved or not.</p>
<p>@zm: I agree that that comment (which I hadn’t heard) was ill-timed and shouldn’t have been made. However, people who seek attention for their extremist points of view every other day of the year shouldn’t be surprised when they get unwanted attention in a situation like this. I don’t think anyone should be unfairly blamed, but it is natural for people to seek answers after the shock sets in. Everyone is looking for the answer to the “WHY?”</p>
<p>So has the New York Post apologized yet for continuing to insist, even after the story had officially and clearly been denied, that a Saudi national was under arrest?</p>
<p>The New York Post is not the voice of the President of the United States.</p>
<p>Neither has CBS or NBC apoloized for their reporting, nor has CNN for its statements in the other direction. Of course, no one knows yet which group, if any, still has to apologize. For all we really know, it could have been someone who hated Kenyan runners.</p>
<p>zoosermom–there is already a healthy buzz over the fact that it occurred on Patriots’ Day which is a holiday in Mass and the timing connection to Waco and Oklahoma City.</p>
<p>In the last few weeks in Texas we had an assistant DA and the DA (and his wife) of Kaufman county gunned down. The assistant was shot dead in the street and the DA was shot 20 times (as reported) and his wife shot once and both killed in their home.</p>
<p>In the media, the Texas governor linked it to “Mexican cartels.” The media speculated it was the Aryan Brotherhood/Nation because of the recent killing in Colorado. </p>
<p>The police recently arrested a former justice of the peace in Kaufman county that the DA and assistant DA prosecuted for stealing computer monitors while he was a JP.</p>
<p>Home grown and personal killings. I think it is always a bad idea for public officials to be speculating.</p>
<p>I agree 07Dad. It’s not like this will be kept a secret forever. Reliable information will become available. We all need to be patient. </p>
<p>I just think pointing fingers encourages more violence. Like when the Southern Poverty Law Center identified the Family Research Council as a hate group and some whackjob took their word for it and shot someone. We don’t want someone to go flying off the handle. Of course everyone is angry and heartbroken and anxious, but it’s far better to be sure.</p>
<p>He was saying we shouldn’t jump to conclusions as he put out a snarky little comment. And he is still very close to the president. Everyone with access to a news camera and microphone should weigh his words very carefully. That’s not too much to ask.</p>
<p>I agree people should be careful. I suppose it’s just impossible for talking heads on TV to avoid listing all the things that it could be, even if they don’t express an opinion as to what it is. Certainly, some things are more likely than others–it’s more likely to be either Middle Eastern terrorism OR domestic anti-government terrorism than it is to be a disgruntled former marathon runner. The authorities have to investigate all possibilities.</p>
<p>I mean, I guess this is how the news networks make their money and they do have to fill air time, right? But ick.</p>
<p>You’re right, it’s more likely to be a known type of terrorist, but every so long something happens to be surprising and it would be bad to stir up unnecessary conflict. I’m sure we would all hate for Muslims to get harassed, but equally, it would be bad for people known to be opposed to taxation to be bothered.</p>
<p>I watched the clip, and I interpreted it this way: DA was saying that the word, “terrorism,” has taken on the connotation of “foreign terrorism” and, therefore, the president has to be careful not to use that word before those responsible have been identified. He offered “It was tax day” as a possible alternate explanation. I don’t think he was, in any way, implying that this was his, or Obama’s, opinion. I’ve seen DA speak on TV a lot, and he has a disjointed speaking style, which may have contributed to misunderstanding.</p>
<p>Correct me if I’m wrong, but the FBI doesn’t have jurisdiction to investigate something unless it falls into certain catagories (federal crimes??), like kidnapping, bank robbery, hate crimes, terrorism, right? If I’m right then the federal government has to characterize this as some form of terrorism to get the FBI involved. I cannot imagine that any state has the resouces to adequately investigate something like this.</p>
<p>BTW–folks who have worked for the UN in tracking international terrorism and/or worked for foreign intelligence services are opining that Boston lacks the ear-marks of international terrorism. Of course, if you ask them for an opinion that’s all it is–an opinion.</p>
<p>I wondered about the FBI, too, but I just assumed that they were the go-to people in high-profile cases that likely would require resources beyond those available to the Boston PD. The FBI, for instance, is going to have a lot more experience with bombings than would the Boston PD.</p>
It may depend on the definition of international terrorism. The Times Square bomber was a dimwit and an American, but his “cause” was international. So it could be a little of this and a little of that. Major Hassan was a homegrown terrorist, but his issue was also international.</p>
<p>I did hear that even without identifying the bombing as an act of terrorism, the mere fact that the FBI is involved indicates it has in fact been categorized as such. </p>
<p>I wonder what the thinking was in not labeling this as terrorism. Yes, I realized that by doing so, many would immediately assume it means foreign terrorists, however the acts should be labeled, not the people. If it turns out that this was done by Americans, then it teaches and reminds us all not to make such an assumption. I wondered if it was an attempt to reduce the emotional reaction?</p>
<p>Sometimes the target doesn’t really fit the ideology, either. Eric Rudolph claimed (long after the fact) that he bombed Olympic Park in Atlanta as an abortion protest. And some people’s ideology is so weird that you’d hate to attach it to any group–i.e., the Unabomber. I guess if I had to choose, I’d choose a lone nut like the Unabomber over an organized group.</p>
<p>I certainly don’t make that assumption either Hunt. But not using the word, in a sense reinforces that thinking, as in, we won’t call it terrorism until we know who did it? that doesn’t make sense to me…</p>
<p>Well, here’s an example, maybe: anybody remember the DC sniper? His actions certainly terrorized people, but there’s good reason to think that his real plan was to murder his ex-wife and make it look like part of a senseless series of killings–he was caught before he got to her. So I suppose something that looks like terrorism really could be something else.</p>
<p>Anyone know how many police are usually working the Marathon? I heard it a few years ago but don’t recall- except that it’s a stunningly high number. Same for medical professionals and first aid qualified. Similarly, large numbers of docs and nurses would be told to be reachable. Not only for this sort of problem.</p>