If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(New York Daily News)   Continuing Boston discussion, high-fives, hell yeahs and whatnot here   (nydailynews.com) divider line 1583
    More: Followup, Tsarnaev, Watertown, suicide bomb, New Bedford, vests  
•       •       •

6518 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 12:18 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1583 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | » | Last
 
2013-04-20 02:43:29 AM

puffy999: GreatGlavinsGhost: The entire time he was referred to as suspect #2.

Uh, yeah, that suspect sh*t went right out the window when a cop was killed and his brother blew himself up in a hail of gunfire.


I don't think so.
 
2013-04-20 02:45:22 AM
Why can't people be happy we got the bad guys? Instead they want to turn it into political crap. No one had their rights violated. Even if so, it was for a day, and no one has complained. Everyone in Boston knew they needed to get these guys. So just STFU already. We got em. Life is back to normal, and you look stupid for whining about it.
 
2013-04-20 02:46:25 AM
Oh holy gods it's practically a lulz tree growing in here and I've been picking lulz fruit all evening.
 
2013-04-20 02:47:04 AM

dark brew: d3sertion:
They don't need your consent or a warrant.  Exigent circumstances obviate the need for either and there has hardly ever been a clearer case than police searching for a wounded and deranged teenager who has a recent history of detonating explosives.

If you really are a lawyer, demand a refund from whatever 3rd tier law school you attended.  Exigent circumstances does not cover searching house to house in an entire section of a city because of a belief that a suspect may be hiding out in the area.


I'll let Harvard know they're not up to your lofty standards.  Go ahead and find someone who's got an actionable case in Waterton and try and litigate it, Mr. Big Shot.
 
2013-04-20 02:48:04 AM
Honestly, I'll be surprised if this kid even sees a court room.  What with the NDAA as law & all they can just toss him in some cell and walk away & no one would do anything about it, or care.
 
2013-04-20 02:49:17 AM

d3sertion: BullBearMS: HideAndGoFarkYourself: 
The PSE has been around for nearly 30 years.  It's not a "new policy" by any means.

The PSE had to do with asking a criminal the question "Where is the gun?" before reading them their rights.

The Obama administration has expanded that to include hours of interrogation.

Your legal analysis is completely vapid.  This was asking "are there anymore bombs" before wheeling the guy into surgery.  It is a clear example of the PSE, "expanded" or not.

The more important point, which you steadfastly refuse to comprehend, is that Miranda is wholly irrelevant in this situation.  You don't ever mirandize a suspect unless you're interrogating them seeking admissible evidence.  In this case, they do not need to use his statements about the locations of bombs against him in court.  In all of the cases you cited, there was virtually no physical evidence or any other sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict the suspects without relying on their confessions or fruit produced from those confessions.

You just don't know what you're talking about.


That was a lucid, intelligent, well thought out response.  He'll never understand it.
 
2013-04-20 02:49:43 AM
i.imgur.com
He was dating Snooki? No wonder he he went off the deep end!
 
2013-04-20 02:49:53 AM

BullBearMS: Bathia_Mapes: BullBearMS: Because it wasn't possible to take a few seconds while the kid was being taken on the stretcher to the ambulance? It was impossible during the ride to the hospital?

The reports I've head said the young man was unconsious from blood loss. Mirandizing someone in that condition is not appropriate. The person being Mirandized has to acknowledge that they understand their rights as explained to them. The suspect was in no condition to do that.

Again, the decision to not read people their rights when the word "terrorist" comes up was made some time ago and had nothing to do with the facts on the ground in this case, no matter how many times people try to make this excuse.

The Obama administration has issued new guidance on use of the Miranda warning in interrogations of terrorism suspects, potentially chipping away at the rule that bars the government from using information in court if it was gathered before a suspect was informed of his right to remain silent and to an attorney.


Saying it over and over again doesn't make it applicable here. He's not been charged with any kind of terrorism.  He hasn't been charged at all, in fact.  He's a suspect, in what will likely be a state-prosecuted crime.
 
2013-04-20 02:49:59 AM

Kittypie070: Oh holy gods it's practically a lulz tree growing in here and I've been picking lulz fruit all evening.


don't keep the lulz fruit in the crisper. Much better sitting in a basket.
 
2013-04-20 02:51:36 AM

HideAndGoFarkYourself: BullBearMS: Bathia_Mapes: BullBearMS: Because it wasn't possible to take a few seconds while the kid was being taken on the stretcher to the ambulance? It was impossible during the ride to the hospital?

The reports I've head said the young man was unconsious from blood loss. Mirandizing someone in that condition is not appropriate. The person being Mirandized has to acknowledge that they understand their rights as explained to them. The suspect was in no condition to do that.

Again, the decision to not read people their rights when the word "terrorist" comes up was made some time ago and had nothing to do with the facts on the ground in this case, no matter how many times people try to make this excuse.

The Obama administration has issued new guidance on use of the Miranda warning in interrogations of terrorism suspects, potentially chipping away at the rule that bars the government from using information in court if it was gathered before a suspect was informed of his right to remain silent and to an attorney.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it applicable here. He's not been charged with any kind of terrorism.  He hasn't been charged at all, in fact.  He's a suspect, in what will likely be a state-prosecuted crime.


No, this case is going federal.  Monday assured that.
 
2013-04-20 02:52:10 AM

Fubini: Here's the thing: how many of those people refused a search, and did the police do a search anyway?  If they did, it's clearly a violation of rights, and the aggrieved stand to make a lot of lawsuit money.


Lol, no.  A) They'd lose on the merits and B) Even if they somehow survived summary judgement on the merits (they couldn't), they'd lose summary judgement a summary judgment motion for lack of standing.  The only way they'd be able to show actual harm is if the officers searched their home, found something illegal, and then proceeded to arrest them based on that evidence found in an "illegal" search.  Even then, the remedy would be excluding the evidence, not a civil suit for "a lot" of money.
 
2013-04-20 02:53:19 AM

d3sertion: You just don't know what you're talking about.


Let's check in with people in the know, who care about the rule of law.

"This administration came in with a principle that they were going to restore the rule of law," says former FBI agent Mike German, who is now with the ACLU. "For the administration to now talk about changing some fundamental protections that have been in effect for a long time is very troubling."

Go back to the Politics tab and make excuses for your team's farkups there. I swear to FSM's noodly appendage that if Obama started throwing kittens in a chipper your sort would immediately praise him for composting.

The answer to terrorism is not to throw our system of laws out the window.
 
2013-04-20 02:53:35 AM

saturn badger: illannoyin: Anyone else enjoying the irony that he's being treated at Beth Israel hospital?

Also, large breasted prom date as requested...

[i.imgur.com image 625x838]

I'm not sure he is the date. If it is he had really long arms.


Worst. Conspiracy. Ever.
 
2013-04-20 02:54:31 AM
I don't get the people who are zealously celebrating after the second bomber was caught. I'm glad he's now in custody but it isn't like some team won a championship. It's not like the harm he and his brother have done will now be undone.
 
2013-04-20 02:55:09 AM

TravelingRetard: Honestly, I'll be surprised if this kid even sees a court room.  What with the NDAA as law & all they can just toss him in some cell and walk away & no one would do anything about it, or care.


It was the bad riders/poison pills in that bill that people are legitimately worried about.

The actual bill itself was concerned in part with keeping the troops's salaries paid, as far as I know.
 
2013-04-20 02:55:10 AM
aid  ..  Gitmo  ..  H2O board  ..  execution

PERFECT!
 
2013-04-20 02:55:46 AM
d3sertion:


I'll let Harvard know they're not up to your lofty standards.  Go ahead and find someone who's got an actionable case in Waterton and try and litigate it, Mr. Big Shot.

Who said anything about finding someone with an actionable case?  You said: They don't need your consent or a warrant.  Exigent circumstances obviate the need for either and there has hardly ever been a clearer case than police searching for a wounded and deranged teenager who has a recent history of detonating explosives.

I have no idea if law enforcement overstepped their bounds today in Watertown.  However, I do know that your belief that there was exigent circumstances for a blanket house to house search is dead wrong.  Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.  Seriously, this is 1L stuff.  Harvard's standards must be slipping.
 
2013-04-20 02:57:56 AM

BullBearMS: d3sertion: You just don't know what you're talking about.

Let's check in with people in the know, who care about the rule of law.

"This administration came in with a principle that they were going to restore the rule of law," says former FBI agent Mike German, who is now with the ACLU. "For the administration to now talk about changing some fundamental protections that have been in effect for a long time is very troubling."

Go back to the Politics tab and make excuses for your team's farkups there. I swear to FSM's noodly appendage that if Obama started throwing kittens in a chipper your sort would immediately praise him for composting.

The answer to terrorism is not to throw our system of laws out the window.


I get it: On the one hand, we wanna ensure we're not under attack by Chechen sleeper cells; on the other, the authorities said this was it, no further threats, so why not read him his rights? But there is a third point in that I'm drunk and still more reasonable than the lot of you.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:31 AM

Kittypie070: The actual bill itself was concerned in part with keeping the troops's salaries paid, as far as I know.


yeah, NDAA stands National Defense Authorization Act, and each NDAA is only good for a short time as it deals with budgeting issues and such.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:38 AM

BullBearMS: d3sertion: You just don't know what you're talking about.

Let's check in with people in the know, who care about the rule of law.

"This administration came in with a principle that they were going to restore the rule of law," says former FBI agent Mike German, who is now with the ACLU. "For the administration to now talk about changing some fundamental protections that have been in effect for a long time is very troubling."

Go back to the Politics tab and make excuses for your team's farkups there. I swear to FSM's noodly appendage that if Obama started throwing kittens in a chipper your sort would immediately praise him for composting.

The answer to terrorism is not to throw our system of laws out the window.


I said it before, and i'll say it again. The Boston PD did a great job. The fact that you are bringing up up Obama, Kittens, and Wood Chippers tells me you have a further agenda. Just stop it already. And no, I'm not a liberal, I'm as conservative as they come on Fark. You are embarrassing me. Now I know how libs feel when they see gat posts.
 
2013-04-20 02:58:43 AM
*tosses a lulz fruit to muck*
 
2013-04-20 02:59:14 AM
 
2013-04-20 03:01:26 AM

dark brew: Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.


Except the cops today didn't search every home in Boston. Not even close. Only those homes contained within the perimeter they were working. Which is acceptable in most cases. There's a big difference between your analogy and what actually happened today. And as far as Dorner is concerned, the cops out there could have searched every home in the area where dorner was at if they hadn't have cornered him to begin with. They didn't have to so your comparison fails straight away.
 
2013-04-20 03:01:31 AM

d3sertion: Fubini: Here's the thing: how many of those people refused a search, and did the police do a search anyway?  If they did, it's clearly a violation of rights, and the aggrieved stand to make a lot of lawsuit money.

Lol, no.  A) They'd lose on the merits and B) Even if they somehow survived summary judgement on the merits (they couldn't), they'd lose summary judgement a summary judgment motion for lack of standing.  The only way they'd be able to show actual harm is if the officers searched their home, found something illegal, and then proceeded to arrest them based on that evidence found in an "illegal" search.  Even then, the remedy would be excluding the evidence, not a civil suit for "a lot" of money.


I guess I should acknowledge that they could theoretically bring a civil suit for trespass against the officers who "illegally" entered their home to seek monetary damages.  But again, prevailing on the merits of this case would be the legal equivalent of scaling Mt. Everest naked.  And even if you did, damages would be limited to the expense of any damage the officers actually caused.

People have tried and failed with much stronger arguments.  I've seen one case where police serving a search warrant kicked in the wrong door and flash banged the occupants and even they couldn't recover for the cost of door.
 
2013-04-20 03:02:36 AM

Kittypie070: *tosses a lulz fruit to muck*


Tried to catch that with my teeth until I realized better, and knew what God gave us feet for.
 
2013-04-20 03:03:54 AM

muck4doo: The fact that you are bringing up up Obama, Kittens, and Wood Chippers tells me you have a further agenda.


Could it be that I'm sick of people claiming to be fellow liberals making excuses for Obama pulling the same kind of lawless bullshiat Bush did?
 
2013-04-20 03:05:11 AM

Clutch2013: HideAndGoFarkYourself: BullBearMS: Bathia_Mapes: BullBearMS: Because it wasn't possible to take a few seconds while the kid was being taken on the stretcher to the ambulance? It was impossible during the ride to the hospital?

The reports I've head said the young man was unconsious from blood loss. Mirandizing someone in that condition is not appropriate. The person being Mirandized has to acknowledge that they understand their rights as explained to them. The suspect was in no condition to do that.

Again, the decision to not read people their rights when the word "terrorist" comes up was made some time ago and had nothing to do with the facts on the ground in this case, no matter how many times people try to make this excuse.

The Obama administration has issued new guidance on use of the Miranda warning in interrogations of terrorism suspects, potentially chipping away at the rule that bars the government from using information in court if it was gathered before a suspect was informed of his right to remain silent and to an attorney.

Saying it over and over again doesn't make it applicable here. He's not been charged with any kind of terrorism.  He hasn't been charged at all, in fact.  He's a suspect, in what will likely be a state-prosecuted crime.

No, this case is going federal.  Monday assured that.


No, it didn't.  There's no "assurance."  They'll give MA the option first, just as they did with John Allen Muhammed and Lee Boyd Malvo when they were arrested.  Everyone assumed that would be a Federal case, but it was not.
 
2013-04-20 03:06:06 AM

draa: dark brew: Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.

Except the cops today didn't search every home in Boston. Not even close. Only those homes contained within the perimeter they were working. Which is acceptable in most cases. There's a big difference between your analogy and what actually happened today. And as far as Dorner is concerned, the cops out there could have searched every home in the area where dorner was at if they hadn't have cornered him to begin with. They didn't have to so your comparison fails straight away.


It was a 20 block perimeter.  If the suspect had been seen by a witness going into a white house on Dexter Street, there might be exigent circumstances.  Simply invading every house in a 20 block radius on the belief that the suspect is likely in the area would not meet the litmus test.
 
2013-04-20 03:09:19 AM

dark brew: d3sertion:


I'll let Harvard know they're not up to your lofty standards.  Go ahead and find someone who's got an actionable case in Waterton and try and litigate it, Mr. Big Shot.

Who said anything about finding someone with an actionable case?  You said: They don't need your consent or a warrant.  Exigent circumstances obviate the need for either and there has hardly ever been a clearer case than police searching for a wounded and deranged teenager who has a recent history of detonating explosives.

I have no idea if law enforcement overstepped their bounds today in Watertown.  However, I do know that your belief that there was exigent circumstances for a blanket house to house search is dead wrong.  Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.  Seriously, this is 1L stuff.  Harvard's standards must be slipping.


How do you think they justified road blocks and searching people's cars?  Do you think they ask your consent before searching your trunk when you're going through a checkpoint?  Ever wondered why they don't need a warrant for that?  Pro tip, exigent circumstances.  Do you think if you pulled up to one of those checkpoints and decided to turn around that they wouldn't chase you down, force you out of your car at gunpoint and search your trunk anyway?

And for what it's worth, if they ever had Dorner pinned down to a confined area before the final standoff, they would have done the exact same thing that happened in Boston.  How often do you have a hot pursuit of a spree killer?
 
2013-04-20 03:09:43 AM

d3sertion: You don't ever mirandize a suspect unless you're interrogating them seeking admissible evidence


The amount of analysis & comment I've seen online that fails to note this is extremely depressing.
Miranda is not necessary during an arrest -- it's necessary to ensure anything the suspect says is admissible in court.
 
2013-04-20 03:10:04 AM

draa: dark brew: Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.

Except the cops today didn't search every home in Boston. Not even close. Only those homes contained within the perimeter they were working. Which is acceptable in most cases. There's a big difference between your analogy and what actually happened today. And as far as Dorner is concerned, the cops out there could have searched every home in the area where dorner was at if they hadn't have cornered him to begin with. They didn't have to so your comparison fails straight away.


Also, the cops in the Dorner case believed that he was in the Big Bear area (towards the end, anyways).  That alone did not create exigent circumstances to search every house in Big Bear without a warrant.
 
2013-04-20 03:10:25 AM
Save your indignations for the next psychotic American killer. You probably won't have to wait long, it seems like they are all coming out of the woodwork.
 
2013-04-20 03:11:03 AM
The best solution to the problem which is the one which presents now and not then is easy! The Tsarnaev must be packed inside a pig - big pig! - and marination of alcohol must also take place when you are seen from the pork is not and the wine is not Qur'anically satisfaction.
 
2013-04-20 03:11:59 AM

thisisyourbrainonFark: get it: On the one hand, we wanna ensure we're not under attack by Chechen sleeper cells; on the other, the authorities said this was it, no further threats, so why not read him his rights? But there is a third point in that I'm drunk and still more reasonable than the lot of you.


See, I happen to think that following the rule of law is a good idea.

Bush's torture, illegal warrantless spying, and throwing people into prison without a trial were all bad ideas, no matter how many times people added, "because terrorism!"

Obama doesn't get a pass for more of the same.

Reading this kid his rights while they were hauling the stretcher to the ambulance or on the way to the hospital would have cost us nothing. There is no valid reason to skip it.

Obama has decided to short circuit more of our Constitutional protections, and that's not OK.
 
2013-04-20 03:14:58 AM
Wow, this thread sucks. You know what thread was awesome? The one in the middle of the night when the trolls and whiny biatches were asleep, and Farkers worked together to figure out just what exactly was going on in Watertown. That was an awesome thread.
 
2013-04-20 03:16:26 AM
Question: Would residents of a Republican city accept what was "minimal" martial law, like how they locked down Boston, if the same situation occurred?
 
2013-04-20 03:17:25 AM

paulseta: he Tsarnaev must be packed inside a pig.


I SAY AGAIN WHAT'S GOING ON IN YOUR WORLD, as YOU ARE APPARENTLY NOT COHERENT.

/I think he's a bot, folks. Really. Got hijacked or sumpin.
 
2013-04-20 03:17:48 AM

Mike Chewbacca: Wow, this thread sucks. ... shiat shiat shiat


that thread that came out of your mom, that wasn't so awesome. amirite?

/looks like it's back to normal folks, get your sleep ;)
 
2013-04-20 03:18:43 AM

ontariolightning: Question: Would residents of a Republican city accept what was "minimal" martial law, like how they locked down Boston, if the same situation occurred?


No, some of the wilder-eyed drooly ones maybe would start shooting the po-po.
 
2013-04-20 03:22:00 AM

muck4doo: BullBearMS: d3sertion: You just don't know what you're talking about.

Let's check in with people in the know, who care about the rule of law.

"This administration came in with a principle that they were going to restore the rule of law," says former FBI agent Mike German, who is now with the ACLU. "For the administration to now talk about changing some fundamental protections that have been in effect for a long time is very troubling."

Go back to the Politics tab and make excuses for your team's farkups there. I swear to FSM's noodly appendage that if Obama started throwing kittens in a chipper your sort would immediately praise him for composting.

The answer to terrorism is not to throw our system of laws out the window.

I said it before, and i'll say it again. The Boston PD did a great job. The fact that you are bringing up up Obama, Kittens, and Wood Chippers tells me you have a further agenda. Just stop it already. And no, I'm not a liberal, I'm as conservative as they come on Fark. You are embarrassing me. Now I know how libs feel when they see gat posts.


Anyone remember Tim McVeigh? He was picked up more or less out of the blue, knew his rights, and barely spoke a word. I read the trial transcript, and I don't believe anything he said - other than perhaps his name - was introduced as evidence. A jury had zero problems convicting him, sentencing him to death, and last I checked, he's still quite dead.

That was a decade and a half ago. The only photo evidence was a couple of grainy semi-still images, which assisted - but were not essential - in making a convincing case that he was guilty.

Assuming this guy recovers and is put on trial, there will be a nearly holographic timeline of his every movement presented, mounds of forensics, and I have very little doubt that he'll be convicted without the jury needing to hear even a single word out of his mouth.

Federal prosecutors are typically pretty sharp people, and they are relentless. Seeing as this case was being personally followed by the President of the United States, along with no less than four members of his cabinet, I feel pretty confident that this guy's life will end, strapped to a gurney in a windowless room in Terre Haute, Indiana. Say what you want about Holder or Obama - neither one of them has a record of being exactly timid when it comes to this "terror" stuff.

So.. they can read him the miranda warning, or they can read Dickens. The outcome is going to be the same. He's toast.
 
2013-04-20 03:23:37 AM
My call, and I was up all night listening to the scanner:
1. Dudes carjack, and get cornered.
2. Younger dude runs over older dude in panic, then abandons car, probably wounded.
3. Staggers off to Charles River and hides in bushes. Adrenalin rush powers this escape.
4. BPD/Law enforcement canvas does not cover the greenway near the Charles River.Dude's probably unconscious/asleep in shrubbery
5. After the area has been searched and cleared, dude, still wounded, but rested, staggers and hides in boat, probably adrenaline powered, thinking he can just wait it out.
6. Ultimately found when "secure in place" is lifted and homeowner catches him by accident.
 
2013-04-20 03:24:21 AM

dark brew: draa: dark brew: Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.

Except the cops today didn't search every home in Boston. Not even close. Only those homes contained within the perimeter they were working. Which is acceptable in most cases. There's a big difference between your analogy and what actually happened today. And as far as Dorner is concerned, the cops out there could have searched every home in the area where dorner was at if they hadn't have cornered him to begin with. They didn't have to so your comparison fails straight away.

It was a 20 block perimeter.  If the suspect had been seen by a witness going into a white house on Dexter Street, there might be exigent circumstances.  Simply invading every house in a 20 block radius on the belief that the suspect is likely in the area would not meet the litmus test.


What part of they didn't invade every house don't you understand? Didn't happen, and if it did, you should provide links for it or it didn't happen. It's that simple. Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded.

I haven't heard a single person from that area complain. Not a single one. I would imagine the 1500 or so people's homes they went to didn't have a problem since the city was bombed on Monday by the guy they were looking for. You know most people would want to catch that asshole don't you? Especially people from that area since he was hiding right there among them. I know I would and having the cops come by would offer a little security for me and my family. And It seems the only people complaining is people that aren't even from Boston or at least that area being searched. I haven't heard anyone from there biatch about it.
 
2013-04-20 03:24:35 AM

dark brew: draa: dark brew: Using the same logic, the police in LA could have searched every home from LA to the San Diego border when Dorner was on the loose.

Except the cops today didn't search every home in Boston. Not even close. Only those homes contained within the perimeter they were working. Which is acceptable in most cases. There's a big difference between your analogy and what actually happened today. And as far as Dorner is concerned, the cops out there could have searched every home in the area where dorner was at if they hadn't have cornered him to begin with. They didn't have to so your comparison fails straight away.

It was a 20 block perimeter.  If the suspect had been seen by a witness going into a white house on Dexter Street, there might be exigent circumstances.  Simply invading every house in a 20 block radius on the belief that the suspect is likely in the area would not meet the litmus test.


You've got this backwards.  An anonymous tip reporting the location of a suspect is hardly ever going to create exigent circumstances, absent the caller saying "he's got a gun to a baby's head" or something equally harrowing.  If the police are operating on an anonymous or even a sourced third-party tip, they would almost certainly need to get a magistrate to rule on whether or not the tip was probable cause for a warrant.

Compare that situation to hot pursuit of a suspect after a shootout where something like 200 shots were exchanged and IEDs deployed leaving one person dead and another critically injured.  The situations are entirely different and the latter is much more severe.  A grid search after a GTA style shootout in an urban area is clearly exigent circumstances.  An anonymous tip about a guy with curly hair being going into a house is not.  You're either stupid or a liar if you can't tell the difference.
 
2013-04-20 03:25:49 AM

paulseta: The best solution to the problem which is the one which presents now and not then is easy! The Tsarnaev must be packed inside a pig - big pig! - and marination of alcohol must also take place when you are seen from the pork is not and the wine is not Qur'anically satisfaction.


Waiter, I'll take two of whatever he is having.
 
2013-04-20 03:27:46 AM
d3sertion:
How do you think they justified road blocks and searching people's cars?  Do you think they ask your consent before searching your trunk when you're going through a checkpoint?  Ever wondered why they don't need a warrant for that?  Pro tip, exigent circumstances.  Do you think if you pulled up to one of those checkpoints and decided to turn around that they wouldn't chase you down, force you out of your car at gunpoint and search your trunk anyway?

And for what it's worth, if they ever had Dorner pinned down to a confined area before the final standoff, they would have done the exact same thing that happened in Boston.  How often do you have a hot pursuit of a spree killer?


Road blocks are a different animal altogether.  You know that.  "Hot pursuit" does not include simply thinking that a guy might be in a certain area.  It's more like "I saw the guy run into one of these houses on this block."
 
2013-04-20 03:28:16 AM
Are we going to see more lockdowns in major cities or was this a one off?
 
2013-04-20 03:31:59 AM
And the saner Republicans, see, would try to prevent the mad-eyed Alex Jones-following drooly ones from going all Red Dawn on the cops and then there would be a huge citywide mass shootout and wow would the cops be confused and then the National Guard would be called up by the governor and then after three weeks it might come down to a thunderous herd of B-52s dropping nukes by order of the Prophet President.

And then the Rapture would occur!!

Afterward, GOP Utopia.

29.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-04-20 03:32:37 AM

draa: What part of they didn't invade every house don't you understand? Didn't happen, and if it did, you should provide links for it or it didn't happen. It's that simple. Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded.


Where did I claim that they invaded every house?  I was simply responding to the comment by d3sertion that  "They don't need your consent or a warrant."  Knocking on doors and asking to search is completely legal.
 
2013-04-20 03:35:18 AM
I'm just glad this guy is in custody, and that no one else got hurt in the chaos. Whether the Commonwealth or Feds try this guy, as long as he gets a fair trial, I'll be a happy man. We are a country of laws, this is an American citizen, and he is due his rights. If we do not give him a jury trial, the Jihadists will point at us and say "See? The Hypocrites in America claim to believe in freedom, but when it comes to a Muslim they will throw him in a box to rot!"

We simply cannot have that. I don't care what they think of us particularly, but we should not give them additional ammo to use in creating a new generation of Jihadists.
 
2013-04-20 03:38:53 AM

d3sertion: Compare that situation to hot pursuit of a suspect after a shootout

d3sertion: A grid search after a GTA style shootout



A hot pursuit is not a grid search 6-12 hours after the suspect fled police.
 
Displayed 50 of 1583 comments

First | « | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | » | Last

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report