Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, Tsarnaev, Watertown, suicide bomb, New Bedford, vests  
•       •       •

6542 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Apr 2013 at 12:18 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1579 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


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

 
2013-04-20 03:44:09 AM  

steamingpile: Glad he's not dead but sick of the coverage every damn minute, mainly because news channels are jizzing all over themselves. F*ck those guys


Now you know how a lot of us feel every time Obama reads one of his head-wagging speeches off his TelePrompTer.
 
2013-04-20 03:46:07 AM  

ontariolightning: Are we going to see more lockdowns in major cities or was this a one off?


We will if we let them get away with this one.
 
2013-04-20 03:48:50 AM  

draa: dark brew: 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.

You keep talking about EC and it's clear you don't even know what it means.

An exigent circumstance allows law enforcement to enter a structure if they believe a suspect may escape. Just like today. It also allows them to enter if there's an imminent danger to the public as well. Just like today. It also allows them to enter a home if the an imminent danger to law enforcment. Just like today.There's limitations to it but there's no set rules on when it can be used or how. That discretion is left up to the officers involved. Just like today.

The guy today was a flight risk. He had already escaped once and would have again in not caught. The guy today posed a danger to the public. He'd already killed three civilians on Monday and fired numerous shots on Thursday night that endangered the public again. The guy today posed a risk to officers and law enforcement. He had killed one officer Thursday night and attempted to kill others trying to escape. All three of those meet the EC.



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.



So you are arguing that there were exigent circumstances present yet law enforcement didn't act upon them.  Got it.
 
2013-04-20 03:49:09 AM  
 
2013-04-20 03:53:01 AM  

MmmmBacon: 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.


you already give them that ammo when you kill innocents in unauthorized drone strikes that the UN says is a violation of nations sovereignty. In Pakistan you kill 50 innocent civillians for1 terrorist . Few years back you accidentally wiped out 24 Pakistani soldiers.. all your country said was we regret it. Nobody got punished,
 
2013-04-20 03:53:26 AM  

BullBearMS: Remember this guy before he turned into Bush 2.0?


Yep.  Took him like, what, 18 months to go from "this administration will respect the rule of law" to "this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"
 
2013-04-20 03:55:09 AM  

dark brew: 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."


No... Because I actually went to law school and took criminal procedure I know road blocks are the exact same thing.
Since you persist with this inane argument, take up your argument with the SCOTUS:

"Of course, there are circumstances that may justify a law enforcement checkpoint where the primary purpose would otherwise, but for some emergency, relate to ordinary crime control. For example, as the Court of Appeals noted, the Fourth Amendment would almost certainly permit an appropriately tailored roadblock set up to thwart an imminent terrorist attack or to catch a dangerous criminal who is likely to flee by way of a particular route. See 183 F.3d, at 662-663. The exigencies created by these scenarios are far removed from the circumstances under which authorities might simply stop cars as a matter of course to see if there just happens to be a felon leaving the jurisdiction."
 City of Indianapolis v. Edmond, 531 U.S. 32, 44, 121 S. Ct. 447, 455, 148 L. Ed. 2d 333 (2000).I reiterate, the road blocks used in the Dorner investigation were justified by the exact same exigent circumstances I put forth for the roadblocks/searches used last night in Boston.  With your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, searching backyards would have been impermissible too as they're generally within the protection of the Amendment's protections.  Do you really think they were getting warrants and calling home owners before looking in back yards for this guy?
 
2013-04-20 03:56:04 AM  

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

Newsletter.  Subscribe.

Remember this guy before he turned into Bush 2.0?

One of the central pledges of Barack Obama's campaign was that - as he put it early in his presidency - the Bush administration had gone wildly wrong because it "established an ad hoc legal approach for fighting terrorism that was neither effective nor sustainable - a framework that failed to rely on our legal traditions and time-tested institutions; that failed to use our values as a compass." Instead, he implored, we must fight Terrorism only "with an abiding confidence in the rule of law and due process, in checks and balances and accountability." Thus, he thunderously vowed, "We must never - ever - turn our back on its enduring principles for expedience sake."


image0-rubylane.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2013-04-20 03:57:28 AM  

clyph: BullBearMS: Remember this guy before he turned into Bush 2.0?

Yep.  Took him like, what, 18 months to go from "this administration will respect the rule of law" to "this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere, without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"


obama is a war criminal and deserves to be before the tribunal for his drone strike slaughters
 
2013-04-20 03:59:28 AM  

BullBearMS: 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.


Hmm, pretty sure the Founding Fathers and the subsequent additions to their tenants kinda considered that the Miranda (Cosgrove) [stop it, seriously now, do you want a seat over there?] laws were intended for the somewhat conscious (ain't we all).

/(looks up her age, creepy in and of itself)
//19
///yes! completely arbitrary societal age now OK!
////forgive the Marv Albert voice, pumped about the playoffs
 
2013-04-20 04:02:21 AM  

dark brew: So you are arguing that there were exigent circumstances present yet law enforcement didn't act upon them. Got it.


W. T. F. I don't give a fark if it was or wasn't. But it was. You seem to be the one that is arguing that they didn't use it and just "invaded" people's homes. Every part of the EC was covered by this suspects action the past 5 days and the cops had every right to use it. And why in the hell would I argue they didn't use it when they clearly did. And I have no problem with them doing what they did.
 
2013-04-20 04:06:01 AM  

dark brew: 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.


No, but a grid search subsequent to a high speed pursuit and shootout, within a perimeter secured by law enforcement, is.  6 or 12 hours later is irrelevant,  as the timing and direction of the search is at the discretion of the officers.  Why wake up everyone in the middle of the night, when you can wait until morning when people are up, and will not be as scared of someone knocking on their door?  You can see better too.
 
2013-04-20 04:06:43 AM  
is everyone aware in general, you don't have to read anyone their miranda rights until they are questioned? (aside from the immediate danger ruling)

You can ask "what happened?" or "what did you see"  and anything a suspect says is legit evidence.

You can't say "what did you do?" etc.

if someone already made the point, TL:DR
 
2013-04-20 04:09:53 AM  
So, Americans, how do you feel that an ntire city can be shut down  and its citizens effectively placed under house arrest while police looking exactly like soldiers flood the streets? It's a glimpse of what they have lined up for you when the shiat hits the fan. Do you still feel you live in the "land of the free"? Also where does it leave your gun arguments when this skinny kid wins a firefight with armed, trained police and evades capture for so long?
 
2013-04-20 04:11:22 AM  

ISO15693: You have to admit - he's like a good luck charm for the US since he's been elected... averted the financial meltdown, got Bin Laden, got the Boston bomber, got health care reform - it's like everything he's involved with turns out perfectly. Maybe we should seriously think about amending the constitution again to allow more than two terms for this guy. It couldn't hurt.


Well, yeah. Apart from the whole Guantanamo thing. And the gun control thing. And the failure to restore taxes for the rich to pre-Chimpy levels. And the fact that the health-care reform passed was a wishy-washy ghost of the original. And all the other broken promises.

But yeah, apart from that he's been brilliant.

And I do get it. His hands are tied behind his back, and he can't do anything due to a system of government that has been gamed and honed to ensure the status quo remains, and that nothing meaningful ever gets done.

Incidentally, beyond saying "We'll sign a check for whatever's needed", how did he "get the Boston bomber"? He didn't. The FBI and law enforcement did.  And how about Bin Laden -- what did he do there? I highly doubt he made command decisions; they'll have been left to people with experience who knew what they were doing. Again, all he will have done is delegate and make promises about checks being signed.

I am and always have been a democrat, I think it's cool he got into office and reelected, and I like his talk. I also think his pretty regular failures to live up to that talk mean he's only mildly above average, though.
 
2013-04-20 04:11:24 AM  

draa: dark brew: So you are arguing that there were exigent circumstances present yet law enforcement didn't act upon them. Got it.

W. T. F. I don't give a fark if it was or wasn't. But it was. You seem to be the one that is arguing that they didn't use it and just "invaded" people's homes. Every part of the EC was covered by this suspects action the past 5 days and the cops had every right to use it. And why in the hell would I argue they didn't use it when they clearly did. And I have no problem with them doing what they did.


Are you slow?  I simply objected to the other guy's belief that there were exigent circumstances present to conduct warrantless searches of homes.  That's it.  I never made a claim that such searches were actually occurring.  If "they" didn't use exigent circumstances to search houses when they "clearly did", why would you say   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.
 
2013-04-20 04:11:43 AM  

dark brew: So you are arguing that there were exigent circumstances present yet law enforcement didn't act upon them. Got it.


And that statement right there just proves you aren't reading a farking thing people are posting about this because right under what you quoted from me in your last post I also said "Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded." It's pretty damn clear they acted on the EC and that the EC was being met in order to search those properties.
 
2013-04-20 04:11:45 AM  

RidersOfLohan: is everyone aware in general, you don't have to read anyone their miranda rights until they are questioned? (aside from the immediate danger ruling)

You can ask "what happened?" or "what did you see"  and anything a suspect says is legit evidence.

You can't say "what did you do?" etc.

if someone already made the point, TL:DR


Right in principle, wrong with your examples.  You can't ask anything that might reasonably lead to an incriminating statement.  Asking a criminal suspect "what happened" or  "what did you see" would almost certainly violate Miranda and trigger the exclusionary protections.  Keep in mind this only comes into play after the suspect is arrested.  If you show up to the scene and ask what happened and the guy is dumb enough to confess, you're golden.
 
2013-04-20 04:12:41 AM  

ontariolightning: MmmmBacon: 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.

you already give them that ammo when you kill innocents in unauthorized drone strikes that the UN says is a violation of nations sovereignty. In Pakistan you kill 50 innocent civillians for1 terrorist . Few years back you accidentally wiped out 24 Pakistani soldiers.. all your country said was we regret it. Nobody got punished,


True. So I suppose we should then disregard this citizen's Constitutional rights, because "They hate us anyway"?
 
2013-04-20 04:15:20 AM  

dark brew: draa: dark brew: So you are arguing that there were exigent circumstances present yet law enforcement didn't act upon them. Got it.

W. T. F. I don't give a fark if it was or wasn't. But it was. You seem to be the one that is arguing that they didn't use it and just "invaded" people's homes. Every part of the EC was covered by this suspects action the past 5 days and the cops had every right to use it. And why in the hell would I argue they didn't use it when they clearly did. And I have no problem with them doing what they did.

Are you slow?  I simply objected to the other guy's belief that there were exigent circumstances present to conduct warrantless searches of homes.  That's it.  I never made a claim that such searches were actually occurring.  If "they" didn't use exigent circumstances to search houses when they "clearly did", why would you say   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.


I'm not slow but you sure as fark might be. You took part of my quote and ignored the rest. Cherry pick some more shiat while you're at it. i'm sure if you look hard enough you'll see where I called you an dumbass for claiming the EC wasn't met though. And you still don't know what EC means.
 
2013-04-20 04:16:26 AM  

dark brew: draa: dark brew: So you are arguing that there were exigent circumstances present yet law enforcement didn't act upon them. Got it.

W. T. F. I don't give a fark if it was or wasn't. But it was. You seem to be the one that is arguing that they didn't use it and just "invaded" people's homes. Every part of the EC was covered by this suspects action the past 5 days and the cops had every right to use it. And why in the hell would I argue they didn't use it when they clearly did. And I have no problem with them doing what they did.

Are you slow?  I simply objected to the other guy's belief that there were exigent circumstances present to conduct warrantless searches of homes.  That's it.  I never made a claim that such searches were actually occurring.  If "they" didn't use exigent circumstances to search houses when they "clearly did", why would you say   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.


If you went to law school or know anything about the constitution you would stop making this argument.  As I pointed out above, the Fourth Amendment also extends to back yards.  There are dozens of photographs from last night showing police searching through backyards looking for this guy.  Unless it's your belief that the police asked each and every home owner for permission before looking through the back yards, this is not a hypothetical conversation.  They either did or didn't violate the Fourth Amendment.

/Yes I'm aware they found him in some guy's backyard they didn't check but clearly they were checking others.
 
2013-04-20 04:16:35 AM  

mediaoutrage.files.wordpress.com

"this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere,
without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"

.
sorry folks,
but I guess
this guy
never existed
huh?

 
2013-04-20 04:17:00 AM  
to be  truthful i just come here and enjoyed and read all the threads just to beg for totalfark but just saying    http://www.infowars.com/
 
2013-04-20 04:18:51 AM  

Kittypie070: [mediaoutrage.files.wordpress.com image 408x500]

"this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere,
without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"
.
sorry folks,
but I guess
this guy
never existed
huh?



So it seems. That are they just don't want to remember him for obvious reason(like most of them supported his worthless ass).
 
2013-04-20 04:18:59 AM  
 

d3sertion: .I reiterate, the road blocks used in the Dorner investigation were justified by the exact same exigent circumstances I put forth for the roadblocks/searches used last night in Boston.  With your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, searching backyards would have been impermissible too as they're generally within the protection of the Amendment's protections.  Do you really think they were getting warrants and calling home owners before looking in back yards for this guy?


Who is talking about road blocks?  Road blocks are their own beast.  Looking into backyards is also a much different animal than actually entering a residence without a search warrant.
 
2013-04-20 04:20:28 AM  
MmmmBacon:

True. So I suppose we should then disregard this citizen's Constitutional rights, because "They hate us anyway"?

There's a reason the rest of the world is ready for a new world order. They are tired of being bullied by America. BRIC is the future. Just like the British Empire and the ones before it, you have over stayed your welcome as world power. Enjoy the slide into the abyss. Couldn't happen to a more deserving country.
 
2013-04-20 04:20:43 AM  

Suede head: So, Americans, how do you feel that an ntire city can be shut down  and its citizens effectively placed under house arrest while police looking exactly like soldiers flood the streets? It's a glimpse of what they have lined up for you when the shiat hits the fan. Do you still feel you live in the "land of the free"? Also where does it leave your gun arguments when this skinny kid wins a firefight with armed, trained police and evades capture for so long?


8/10  Well constructed.  You'll get a bite or 2
 
2013-04-20 04:22:52 AM  
Btw, why are Americans obsessed with old relics like the bible and the constitution? Join us in the year 2013.
You might enjoy it better
 
2013-04-20 04:23:01 AM  
WTF are you people still talking about. I get up to pee and I find these shenanigans.
 
2013-04-20 04:23:30 AM  
I wonder if this event will be traceable in Boston birth rates in 9 months
 
2013-04-20 04:23:55 AM  

machoprogrammer: saturn badger: machoprogrammer: And the funny part is all the feds and police wouldn't have caught them if they hadn't been stupid and hightailed it the fark out of there before anyone knew who they were.

The guy in the hospital fingered them first and then someone who knew who #2 was called the FBI. They may have gotten out but they were doomed from the minute that pic was published. There was no escaping this one.

Had they left the country Monday, they could've gotten away. They could have gotten a flight to Egypt or some other country (out of say, NYC). The fact they stayed around the area (probably stupidest thing they could've done) makes me think they wanted to go down, and not get away


machoprogrammer: saturn badger: machoprogrammer: And the funny part is all the feds and police wouldn't have caught them if they hadn't been stupid and hightailed it the fark out of there before anyone knew who they were.

The guy in the hospital fingered them first and then someone who knew who #2 was called the FBI. They may have gotten out but they were doomed from the minute that pic was published. There was no escaping this one.

Had they left the country Monday, they could've gotten away. They could have gotten a flight to Egypt or some other country (out of say, NYC). The fact they stayed around the area (probably stupidest thing they could've done) makes me think they wanted to go down, and not get away


Why would they go to Egypt? Why not home?

I think the more likely explanation was that they thought it would take a lot longer for anyone to ID them and that they were not done yet.
 
2013-04-20 04:24:01 AM  

draa: And that statement right there just proves you aren't reading a farking thing people are posting about this because right under what you quoted from me in your last post I also said "Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded." It's pretty damn clear they acted on the EC and that the EC was being met in order to search those properties.


If EC was being met, why would they ask?  You doubted that anybody got their doors kicked in.  If they were acting on EC, they wouldn't need to ask or worry about kicking doors in.  I ask again, are you slow?  At least d3sertion brings up semi defensible legal positions.  You bring nothing.
 
2013-04-20 04:25:57 AM  

Suede head: So, Americans, how do you feel that an ntire city can be shut down  and its citizens effectively placed under house arrest while police looking exactly like soldiers flood the streets? It's a glimpse of what they have lined up for you when the shiat hits the fan. Do you still feel you live in the "land of the free"? Also where does it leave your gun arguments when this skinny kid wins a firefight with armed, trained police and evades capture for so long?


SUPERTROLL 9000 AWARD!!!!!!
 
2013-04-20 04:26:40 AM  

jaylight2003: infowars shill


No, please go to Free Republic to push that.

Alex Jones pants peeing hysteria isn't exactly the hip thing around here.
 
2013-04-20 04:29:39 AM  
This is that occasion that those of you should applaud law enforcement. Many of you here are negative about their efforts, but with the last week, they've shown absolute professionalism and restraint. They were there when we needed them the most. I truly applaud their efforts in detaining this man alive. It must have taken a great amount of restraint to not have shot him in the field. I also applaud the man that was observant and reported the younger brother in his boat at his yard, opened the tarp and saw him in there. He should be given a key to the city of Boston. That guy has balls. It pays to do the right thing. Today is a proud day to be an American. Today our law enforcement displayed complete dedication to keeping us safe. Congrats to all involved, and much respect to those that have lost loved ones, or those that have been injured or affected by this. All in all, it was a positive ending to a horrible tragedy.
 
2013-04-20 04:30:19 AM  

MmmmBacon: True. So I suppose we should then disregard this citizen's Constitutional rights, because "They hate us anyway"?


We're following the exact same standard we did under Bush.

It's OK to disregard this citizens Constitutional rights, because terrorism.

What's so sad is how quickly we've gone from Sara Palin being the nutcase VP candidate saying that turrists don't deserve miranda rights (and the left attacking her for it) to the party shills on both sides defending this bullshiat in perfect unison.
 
2013-04-20 04:30:24 AM  

Kittypie070: [mediaoutrage.files.wordpress.com image 408x500]

"this administration can kill anyone, anytime, anywhere,
without due process as long as we call them a terrorist"
.
sorry folks,
but I guess
this guy
never existed
huh?


He's been gone 5 years.  Let it go.  Live in the now!
 
2013-04-20 04:32:46 AM  
no way I would be caught dead in contractor-type pants
 
2013-04-20 04:33:23 AM  

Suede head: So, Americans, how do you feel that an ntire city can be shut down  and its citizens effectively placed under house arrest while police looking exactly like soldiers flood the streets? It's a glimpse of what they have lined up for you when the shiat hits the fan. Do you still feel you live in the "land of the free"? Also where does it leave your gun arguments when this skinny kid wins a firefight with armed, trained police and evades capture for so long?


They showed restraint by not shooting and killing him. They had that option. For the purposes of national security they didn't kill him, and they ended up capturing him alive. It was a net gain at the end of the day. Be objective. You can learn more from the person being alive than dead. You and I both know that they would have killed him had they not wanted to take him alive. The officers that responded showed balls and completed restraint, and they should be applauded for this, as well as the citizen that had the nuts to go outside and scope out his premises.
 
2013-04-20 04:33:47 AM  

dark brew: d3sertion: .I reiterate, the road blocks used in the Dorner investigation were justified by the exact same exigent circumstances I put forth for the roadblocks/searches used last night in Boston.  With your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, searching backyards would have been impermissible too as they're generally within the protection of the Amendment's protections.  Do you really think they were getting warrants and calling home owners before looking in back yards for this guy?

Who is talking about road blocks?  Road blocks are their own beast.  Looking into backyards is also a much different animal than actually entering a residence without a search warrant.


Asshole, you brought up the damn roadblocks.  You said they didn't rely on exigent circumstances to conduct warrantless searches in the Dorner case and I correctly pointed out that they did.  You said roadblocks are a different beast and I quoted a farking Supreme Court case explaining that the use of road blocks is specifically justified by exigent circumstances in the cases of terrorists and known dangerous criminals on the run.  And now you're trying to argue that curtilage isn't protected by the Fourth Amendment?  I don't even know why I'm arguing with you, you're either the worst lawyer ever or never even attended law school.

At the risk of sounding like a tool, I get billed out by my firm at $750 an hour to research, write, and argue constitutional appeals.  I'm not playing armchair lawyer here, I do this 70 hours a week.  Start citing cases and making cogent arguments or I'm going to bed.
 
2013-04-20 04:36:21 AM  

dark brew: draa: And that statement right there just proves you aren't reading a farking thing people are posting about this because right under what you quoted from me in your last post I also said "Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded." It's pretty damn clear they acted on the EC and that the EC was being met in order to search those properties.

If EC was being met, why would they ask?  You doubted that anybody got their doors kicked in.  If they were acting on EC, they wouldn't need to ask or worry about kicking doors in.  I ask again, are you slow?  At least d3sertion brings up semi defensible legal positions.  You bring nothing.



So that's what you're going with now? Why did they ask? Maybe because that's the neighborly thing to do. Maybe the cops in Boston are just decent people. How in the hell do I know? Why don't you ask them if you're that concerned.

Oh, and just so you're aware of what you said eariler about invading homes. Here.

dark brew: 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.

Notice the bolded part. That was your exact quote there dark brew. Notice the "simply invading every house" part in your comment? Now you may not have meant they were invading but you actually implied that they were. So either be less hyperbolic in your claims or stick to your guns and admit what you posted. Either way you were wrong with a link to prove it was happening that way.
 
2013-04-20 04:38:36 AM  
d3sertion:
Who is talking about road blocks?  Road blocks are their own beast.  Looking into backyards is also a much different animal than actually entering a residence without a search warrant.

Asshole, you brought up the damn roadblocks.  You said they didn't rely on exigent circumstances to conduct warrantless searches in the Dorner case and I correctly pointed out that they did.  You said roadblocks are a different beast and I quoted a farking Supreme Court case explaining that the use of road blocks is specifically justified by exigent circumstances in the cases of terrorists and known dangerous criminals on the run.  And now you're trying to argue that curtilage isn't protected by the Fourth Amendment?  I don't even know why I'm arguing with you, you're either the worst lawyer ever or never even attended law school.

At the risk of sounding like a tool, I get billed out by my firm at $750 an hour to research, write, and argue constitutional appeals.  I'm not playing armchair lawyer here, I do this 70 hours a week.  Start citing cases and making cogent arguments or I'm going to bed.


No, you brought up roadblocks.  I never said anything about roadblocks before you brought them up.

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.
 
2013-04-20 04:40:29 AM  

dark brew: draa: And that statement right there just proves you aren't reading a farking thing people are posting about this because right under what you quoted from me in your last post I also said "Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded." It's pretty damn clear they acted on the EC and that the EC was being met in order to search those properties.

If EC was being met, why would they ask?  You doubted that anybody got their doors kicked in.  If they were acting on EC, they wouldn't need to ask or worry about kicking doors in.  I ask again, are you slow?  At least d3sertion brings up semi defensible legal positions.  You bring nothing.


Hmmmm. I wonder why police wouldn't go around kicking in doors unannounced in a neighborhood where everyone is sitting on pins and needles because they're worried a crazy fugitive is going to break into their house ?  Could it be that the cops didn't want to be shot at and bludgeoned with baseball bats repeatedly?
 
2013-04-20 04:41:18 AM  

d3sertion: dark brew: d3sertion: .I reiterate, the road blocks used in the Dorner investigation were justified by the exact same exigent circumstances I put forth for the roadblocks/searches used last night in Boston.  With your interpretation of the Fourth Amendment, searching backyards would have been impermissible too as they're generally within the protection of the Amendment's protections.  Do you really think they were getting warrants and calling home owners before looking in back yards for this guy?

Who is talking about road blocks?  Road blocks are their own beast.  Looking into backyards is also a much different animal than actually entering a residence without a search warrant.

Asshole, you brought up the damn roadblocks.  You said they didn't rely on exigent circumstances to conduct warrantless searches in the Dorner case and I correctly pointed out that they did.  You said roadblocks are a different beast and I quoted a farking Supreme Court case explaining that the use of road blocks is specifically justified by exigent circumstances in the cases of terrorists and known dangerous criminals on the run.  And now you're trying to argue that curtilage isn't protected by the Fourth Amendment?  I don't even know why I'm arguing with you, you're either the worst lawyer ever or never even attended law school.

At the risk of sounding like a tool, I get billed out by my firm at $750 an hour to research, write, and argue constitutional appeals.  I'm not playing armchair lawyer here, I do this 70 hours a week.  Start citing cases and making cogent arguments or I'm going to bed.


Don't stress it with those that don't get it. I'm as supportive of anti search and seizure as anyone. However this was that 1 in 1 million instance that it was justified. With a policeman having been killed, and a couple firefights having taken place, and knowing the suspect may have been armed with explosives...they showed professionalism and dedication by doing everything they could to capture the man alive, and not load him full of lead. Considering the 4th amendment, it wasn't used as a platform to incriminate those with nothing to do with the investigation. They were pinpointed on the man. I just couldn't help but think: wow, they actually got him, and they got him ALIVE. Really proud of law enforcement right now. They showed absolute restraint and professionalism.
 
2013-04-20 04:41:18 AM  
andychrist420:He's been gone 5 years.  Let it go.  Live in the now!

I usually do that. But that particular lulz fruit was just soooo tasty looking....

*offers andychrist some extremely nice hippy beads*
 
2013-04-20 04:44:33 AM  

andychrist420: He's been gone 5 years.  Let it go.  Live in the now!


Those who forget history are doomed to repeat it. Obama fooled us into thinking he was something different, but if we aren't diligent, we will repeat that mistake again in 2016.

We simply can't have that.
No Bush
No Obama
 
2013-04-20 04:46:50 AM  

dark brew: At least d3sertion brings up semi defensible legal positions. You bring nothing.


I brought plenty but you're just ignoring it. You been proven wrong time and time again and every time you move the goal posts to somewhere else that looks like it will help your position. It won't.

I was arguing EC. Nothing else. You were claiming that it wasn't EC and I was claiming it was EC. Stop going off target and admit that EC was met. You know it was and yet you're on some bs about "why didn't they use it." and "I didn't say invading." That's bullshiat. They used it. Got that? They used it whether the kicked doors in or whether they knocked. I don't care if they only asked instead of being assholes and kicking shiat in. That's not important and you know it. They used it and they had every right to use it and that's all that matters to me. You're about to go on ignore and I won't have to put up with this ignorance anymore.
 
2013-04-20 04:46:54 AM  

draa: dark brew: draa: And that statement right there just proves you aren't reading a farking thing people are posting about this because right under what you quoted from me in your last post I also said "Now did they knock on doors and ask to search? Sure but I seriously doubt anybody got their doors kicked in or invaded." It's pretty damn clear they acted on the EC and that the EC was being met in order to search those properties.

If EC was being met, why would they ask?  You doubted that anybody got their doors kicked in.  If they were acting on EC, they wouldn't need to ask or worry about kicking doors in.  I ask again, are you slow?  At least d3sertion brings up semi defensible legal positions.  You bring nothing.


So that's what you're going with now? Why did they ask? Maybe because that's the neighborly thing to do. Maybe the cops in Boston are just decent people. How in the hell do I know? Why don't you ask them if you're that concerned.

Oh, and just so you're aware of what you said eariler about invading homes. Here.

dark brew: 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.

Notice the bolded part. That was your exact quote there dark brew. Notice the "simply invading every house" part in your comment? Now you may not have meant they were invading but you actually implied that they were. So either be less hyperbolic in your claims or stick to your guns and admit what you posted. Either way you were wrong with a link to prove it happening that way.


So I am actually arguing with a retard.  Nice to know. Yes, I said if police invaded every house in a 20 block radius that would not fall under exigent circumstances.  That is logically consistent with every other claim I've made in this thread.  You don't seem to be able to grasp that concept.  If police ask to enter a house and the homeowner or resident gives permission to enter said house, then no, there is no breach of rights in that case.  Even the other guy that I am arguing against would admit to such.  If the homeowner or resident objects to such a search and one occurs anyways, it would be up to the courts to decide if exigent circumstances existed.  My position is that they didn't, at least with the known facts at this time.
 
2013-04-20 04:50:20 AM  

Suede head: So, Americans, how do you feel that an ntire city can be shut down  and its citizens effectively placed under house arrest while police looking exactly like soldiers flood the streets?


Meanwhile, across Europe last week....

i33.tinypic.com


i35.tinypic.com

i37.tinypic.com
i35.tinypic.com
i36.tinypic.com

That was just last month.  Each one is a different E.U country, and I could easily have kept going for pages.  Reality is, U.S. states have 1/10th as many city wide police actions in a decade as the average European state each week.

Sorry, dude.  I know it's trendy and hip to pretend otherwise, but the U.S. just isn't that bad.
 
2013-04-20 04:52:57 AM  
draa:.
I was arguing EC. Nothing else. You were claiming that it wasn't EC and I was claiming it was EC. Stop going off target and admit that EC was met. You know it was and yet you're on some bs about "why didn't they use it." and "I didn't say invading." That's bullshiat. They used it. Got that? They used it whether the kicked doors in or whether they knocked. I don't care if they only asked instead of being assholes and kicking shiat in. That's not important and you know it. They used it and they had every right to use it and that's all that matters to me. You're about to go on ignore and I won't have to put up with this ignorance anymore.


Put me on ignore please.  I would hate for someone this farking dumb to continue to read what I write.  You said:

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.

Therefore you are admitting that EC didn't happen (or at least it wasn't applied), yet you continue to argue that it was.  Fascinating, the wild ignoramus.
 
Displayed 50 of 1579 comments


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


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report