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.

(The Atlantic Wire)   That crazy shootout in Watertown? About that   (theatlanticwire.com) divider line 424
    More: Followup, radio-controlled car  
•       •       •

30969 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:16 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 12:17:41 AM  

TopoGigo: links136: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

They didn't search houses, they searched the yards.  They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

If that's the case, I'm less upset. I still don't love that police can search my yard without probable cause or a warrant, but under extreme circumstances such as this I can accept it.  Based on the video posted a little upthread, though, it sure sounded like they weren't asking permission to search houses.
For the record, if given the choice between sucking a dick and getting my house searched by SWAT teams, I might just go for the dick. Both would disgust me and leave a bad taste in my mouth, but at least sucking a dick wouldn't feel so much like rape.


i'm think the immediate area (2 by 2 blocks) was searched like that, then when they expanded to 20 by 20 blocks, it was a yard sweep.
 
2013-04-26 12:17:45 AM  

luxup: max_pooper: take_flight: luxup: flyinglizard: redsquid: TheManofPA: Amos Quito: jaytkay: ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

Chances are that MOST people will remember the made up shiat, and pay little mind to the pesky "details" as they trickle out anyway.

Kind of related, wonder how many people remember Richard Jewell as the Olympics bomber.

I was just talking about that the other day and couldn't for the life of me remember the actual bombers name. Yay media!

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

Jack Ruby, Ruby for short, is the guy they made that football movie about.

I thought that was Rudy...Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger

No, that was Daniel "Day" Lewis.

Yeah, he played a kicker with a killer left foot.


No that was Kathy Ireland in Necessary Roughness.
 
2013-04-26 12:18:48 AM  

jjorsett: Ever hear the term "the fog of war"? Now you know first-hand what it means.


I'd never heard two assclowns with large pipe bombs and handguns called a war. I guess that fart I just emitted was a chemical attack?
 
2013-04-26 12:19:23 AM  

STRYPERSWINE: Meh.  No tears for terrorists.


Indeed, not. The tears are for the rest of us. What a sad turn of events that we should be victimized worse by those charged with protecting us than we were by those we needed protection from. Just remember, if the police can do this to a terrorist, they can do it to you. I'd like to think that Enemy of the State wasn't a documentary.
 
2013-04-26 12:19:32 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.


What the fark are you talking about?  There was no firefight?
 
2013-04-26 12:20:36 AM  

chuggernaught: Amos Quito: luxup: Just wondering something.  I was listening on the scanner that Friday and I remember after that first firefight someone was saying to make sure to load up on the rubber bullets.  I don't remember the exact words but he mentioned rubber bullets twice and I certainly had the impression they were not using live ammo.  I figured they wanted to get this guy alive.

Accepting that they were using rubber bullets instead of live ammo, could they have opened fire with the intent to incapacitate without killing thereby making his having a gun irrelevant?  If he had a gun or not (which it looks like he didn't at the time), could pelting him with rubber shots been a tactic to make him easier to approach?


Yeah, they were after assailant(s) that they believed just KILLED A COP.

I'm sure they were all about the "less than lethal" mentality.


/Think of Chris Dorner

This.  When cops are after a suspected cop killer the game has changed.  If the cops suspect you have killed a cop, chances are they are looking to take you out permanently rather than take you in.


Then why were they making sure to use rubber bullets?

I guess people can't conceive of a police force that is not full of bloodthirsty murderers bent on revenge.  Hell, if they all wanted to kill him and were using live ammunition then that would mean they are all lousy shots not able to kill a guy with no gun.

But no you see, they were using rubber bullets.
 
2013-04-26 12:20:44 AM  

whidbey: 401kman: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt.    Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war.  Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.

Not seeing it. And I would have to say that after a horrible act of attempted mass murder that took place at the Marathon and the firefight in Watertown, anyone refusing to cooperate in the ensuing manhunt just ends up looking like a total asshole hampering an apprehension process.


Suppose I told you that 97% +/- (say 2%) of the bullets fired/bombs set off were from law enforcement in the apprehension of these suspects in a crowded city neighborhood.   And that your odds from being the victim of some gun crime vs a terrorist attack are 100,000 to 1.  Lets say there is a 75% percent chance that everything I just said was true.

Would you still say that the cops/fbi response had made you any safer?
 
2013-04-26 12:22:09 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.


Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.
You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.
 
2013-04-26 12:22:26 AM  
I must have missed the part where they beat up innocent citizens and let a few homes get blown up by IED's from some psycho.

Oh, wait.... that didn't happen.

I'm not fan of LE but I would have let them into my home in this situation. I doubt they'd care about the bong on my kitchen counter...
 
2013-04-26 12:23:36 AM  

links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.
 
2013-04-26 12:25:04 AM  

LoneDoggie: [img195.imageshack.us image 800x707]

Nope, nothing wrong with this at all citizen.  Might as well get used to it...

/ps for the hard of seeing, that dude is pointing a M4 at your face for daring to look out his/her window.
//doubleplusungood


Unknown individual in window during a house-to-house search for a potentially armed and dangerous suspect w/ explosives?  Having someone with sights on them should be expected.
 
2013-04-26 12:25:07 AM  

medius: jso2897: trappedspirit: 2 words
Fog Of War

No one expects the Fog of War.

you never see it coming


That's what she said.
 
2013-04-26 12:25:16 AM  

Theaetetus: SirHolo: He will end up being cremated and spread over the back lawn of some municipal site.

They should use him for pothole filler on Boylston street at the finish line for next year's race. Let 40,000 pairs of shoes pound on his remains.


I think we are judged by how we treat the worst in our society.  Smiting the dead, no matter how deserving they are of their fate,  won't do anyone any good.
 
2013-04-26 12:25:30 AM  

links136: What the fark are you talking about? There was no firefight?


There was no active firefight as the police were searching houses. If TFA is to be believed, there was no active firefight when Justin Bomber was captured, just attempted murder. Yes, the day before there was certainly a firefight, but that was well and done with. The previous day's shoot-out with these terrorists may have been poor judgement or poor tactics due to the danger of collateral damage (or maybe it wasn't--it's a matter of opinion) but it was legally and morally justified. Once that event, and the "hot pursuit" when the suspect's general location was known, ended the justification ended with it.
 
2013-04-26 12:25:40 AM  

redsquid: TheManofPA: Amos Quito: jaytkay: ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

Chances are that MOST people will remember the made up shiat, and pay little mind to the pesky "details" as they trickle out anyway.

Kind of related, wonder how many people remember Richard Jewell as the Olympics bomber.

I was just talking about that the other day and couldn't for the life of me remember the actual bombers name. Yay media!


It was Steve Bartman right?
 
2013-04-26 12:27:00 AM  

whidbey: *scans thread*

*Tosses a huge roll of tinfoil at the usual suspects*


I'm gonna get the giant rolls and make the most amazing hats. I'll sell them on etsy and I'll put actual transmitters in them. I'll be rich!
 
2013-04-26 12:27:46 AM  

farkinglizardking: I must have missed the part where they beat up innocent citizens and let a few homes get blown up by IED's from some psycho.

Oh, wait.... that didn't happen.

I'm not fan of LE but I would have let them into my home in this situation. I doubt they'd care about the bong on my kitchen counter...


You say that now.
 
2013-04-26 12:28:20 AM  

links136: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

They didn't search houses, they searched the yards.  They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.



Not according to that video linked higher up in the thread.  According to that video, SWAT was showing up at people's doors, pointing guns in their faces and yelling "get out, get out" before barging right on in. Then the video implied they weren't letting people back in their houses.   So, yeah, thats a big deal.
 
2013-04-26 12:28:47 AM  

401kman: whidbey: 401kman: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt.    Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war.  Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.

Not seeing it. And I would have to say that after a horrible act of attempted mass murder that took place at the Marathon and the firefight in Watertown, anyone refusing to cooperate in the ensuing manhunt just ends up looking like a total asshole hampering an apprehension process.

Suppose I told you that 97% +/- (say 2%) of the bullets fired/bombs set off were from law enforcement in the apprehension of these suspects in a crowded city neighborhood.   And that your odds from being the victim of some gun crime vs a terrorist attack are 100,000 to 1.  Lets say there is a 75% percent chance that everything I just said was true.

Would you still say that the cops/fbi response had made you any safer?


I would expect this kind of total manhunt knowing incredibly dangerous the suspects were, and definitely after the subsequent events in Watertown.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this.
 
2013-04-26 12:28:58 AM  

billygeek: He ran over his brother while he was still alive. Shot, but alive...

He can rot in jail for the rest of his life haunted by this fact.



Ya, about that.  I'll wait for the coroners report before I claim to know what the cause of death was.  Something has allways felt odd about that "fact".  Don't get me wrong, I think there was some good work done by the various police departments takeing part, I think there were some showing up just for the  overtime, and I think there was some shoddy work done by some.  That "fact" is not possible to determine as quickly as it was released and smacked of an attempt to close off a loop of questions considering he supposedly set off a suicide bomb and was hit with an uncountable number of bullets.

The tweet by the BPD saying "Justice has won!". Justice includes the courts, the police are one part of an overall system.

I don't think there was a conspiracy, I don't think there was a coverup, but I do think there are individuals that are stupid enough to think they can control the narrative.  Don't build people into unrealistic heros and don't hate them when they turn out to be human.  Learn from the tragedy and make adjustments.
 
2013-04-26 12:29:11 AM  

Old enough to know better: Just farking great. How long until this kid gets turned into some kind of tea party hero who's been victimized by the evil government?


Wow, that's the Triple Lindy of Bullshiat. Despite the guy not fitting the mold that lefties kept jacking off to, still trying to force that narrative?
 
2013-04-26 12:30:01 AM  

pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.


I also know there were pictures from farkers of cops going through their home, said they were super friendly about it.  I don't know anymore, i'm guessing they searched like this in the immediate 2 by 2 area.  I'd like to hear from local residents about everything that happened.
 
2013-04-26 12:30:48 AM  

whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.
You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.


Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.
 
2013-04-26 12:30:55 AM  

MrHappyRotter: Good god, it's like half of Fark is 90% haters, half is 90% retards and the other half is 90% psychos.


And the other half is a bear, and the other half is an alligator.
 
2013-04-26 12:31:38 AM  

dccc: links136: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

They didn't search houses, they searched the yards.  They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.


Not according to that video linked higher up in the thread.  According to that video, SWAT was showing up at people's doors, pointing guns in their faces and yelling "get out, get out" before barging right on in. Then the video implied they weren't letting people back in their houses.   So, yeah, thats a big deal.


yeah, i'd like to know more too now.
 
2013-04-26 12:33:31 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.
You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.


you mean the guy with the dude shooting at them, throwing ieds and leaving pressure cooker bombs while driving over his brother and breaking barricades?  They were probably making sure these were the boston bomber suspects.
 
2013-04-26 12:33:45 AM  

whidbey: Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: winchester92: I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him Slip Away
Out of kindness, I suppose..."

You have a really unhealthy obsession with outlaws. Just saying. Protip: romanticizing lawbreakers doesn't make them innocent.


"Pancho needs your prayers it's true
But save a few for Whidbey too
He only did what he had to do
And now he's growing old..."


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

More like "come up with actual arguments that aren't fueled by total kneejerk paranoid loathing of authority figures" but you clearly aren't up to the task.



Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

You "respect" authority figures PROVIDED that that you PERCEIVE that they are "in tune" with your myopic version of your Liberal Utopia - little realizing that the powers you willingly grant to those you "love" might at any moment be handed to those you despise.

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


whidbey: Also, distracting from criticism of your unhealthy fantasies by shaming others' marijuana usage is equally disingenuous.



I have NO problem with the MJ, Whid... except that in YOUR case, the imaginary support thereof (Obama/Liberal hypocrisy) seems to skew your opinion in favor of those who would spitefully USE you - and us.

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.
 
2013-04-26 12:34:20 AM  

links136: pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.

I also know there were pictures from farkers of cops going through their home, said they were super friendly about it.  I don't know anymore, i'm guessing they searched like this in the immediate 2 by 2 area.  I'd like to hear from local residents about everything that happened.


Huh. If you watch the video, people come out with their hands on their heads. Some of them then lower their hands, and get yelled at to put them back up. Why? It was immediately obvious that none of them were the bomber.
I also counted them getting frisked multiple times - once by the guy at the bottom of the stairs, and then again once they were by the truck.
 
2013-04-26 12:34:56 AM  

401kman: whidbey: 401kman: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

It was more like a military invasion than a manhunt.    Putting that kind of ordinance in close contact with with civilians is more like something for a time of war.  Because the very real problem is that putting troops in with civilians will cause casualties.

In this case the police/fbi response was way overkill for the even the worst case projections of what heat the suspects were packing.

Not seeing it. And I would have to say that after a horrible act of attempted mass murder that took place at the Marathon and the firefight in Watertown, anyone refusing to cooperate in the ensuing manhunt just ends up looking like a total asshole hampering an apprehension process.

Suppose I told you that 97% +/- (say 2%) of the bullets fired/bombs set off were from law enforcement in the apprehension of these suspects in a crowded city neighborhood.   And that your odds from being the victim of some gun crime vs a terrorist attack are 100,000 to 1.  Lets say there is a 75% percent chance that everything I just said was true.

Would you still say that the cops/fbi response had made you any safer?


You know what, you convinced me, the cops and FBI should have let them go.  Now here comes the good part...

What would you have done differently?  Remember, your answer will be scrutinized and challenged with reality.  Saying something like "I would only have searched where they were" or "I would only have fired 1 bullet after having cornered him on a deserted street" I hope you realize would be too dumb to be considered as a real response.

Keep in mind, NOBODY who went through it is complaining and the guy who's boat they shot up is not complaining and all the pictures I have seen of bullet holes in peoples walls are from people who are not complaining.  So after you give us your brilliant plan on how you would have handled the manhut (which won't come), why are you?
 
2013-04-26 12:35:51 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.
You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.


Personal attacks from you doesn't change the fact that probable cause was justified per the 4th Amendment, either. The honorable thing to do is admit you have no viable argument here and you are acting hysterical.
 
2013-04-26 12:36:13 AM  

pedrop357: farkinglizardking: I must have missed the part where they beat up innocent citizens and let a few homes get blown up by IED's from some psycho.

Oh, wait.... that didn't happen.

I'm not fan of LE but I would have let them into my home in this situation. I doubt they'd care about the bong on my kitchen counter...

You say that now.


I say it now and again. I don't like the way they carried out this situation but there is very little precedent for dealing with rampaging bombers roaming free in a densely populated area.

But the mother says they were innocent, so...
 
2013-04-26 12:37:26 AM  

luxup: Amos Quito: luxup: Just wondering something.  I was listening on the scanner that Friday and I remember after that first firefight someone was saying to make sure to load up on the rubber bullets.  I don't remember the exact words but he mentioned rubber bullets twice and I certainly had the impression they were not using live ammo.  I figured they wanted to get this guy alive.

Accepting that they were using rubber bullets instead of live ammo, could they have opened fire with the intent to incapacitate without killing thereby making his having a gun irrelevant?  If he had a gun or not (which it looks like he didn't at the time), could pelting him with rubber shots been a tactic to make him easier to approach?


Yeah, they were after assailant(s) that they believed just KILLED A COP.

I'm sure they were all about the "less than lethal" mentality.


/Think of Chris Dorner

How does any of that change that they were using rubber bullets?



I don't know that anyone was using "rubber bullets", and neither do you.

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

Did they mean what they said? Or were they playing to their AUDIENCE (you)?

 Maybe "rubber bullets" is cop code for KILL THAT MOTHERFARKER!


/Got evidence?
 
2013-04-26 12:38:28 AM  

whidbey: I would expect this kind of total manhunt knowing incredibly dangerous the suspects were, and definitely after the subsequent events in Watertown.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this.


Man, I really wish I could write you off as a troll and be done with it. I mean, I've seen you go clear off the rails crusading for the Democratic establishment plenty of times (in fact, you're the only leftie I have marked in troll/disruptive/stupid red3) but I've never seen you lose your sh*t over something so stupid that doesn't directly relate to a party line. Sadly, I just don't get an asshole, satire, moron, or troll vibe from you so I have to believe this is how you really think. I may consider changing your label from "Democratic party crusader" to "Yells at own shopping cart full of garbage".
 
909
2013-04-26 12:38:51 AM  

jjorsett: Walker: Wow, how many times is this story gonna change? And people wonder why other people believe in conspiracy theories.

Ever hear the term "the fog of war"? Now you know first-hand what it means.


But soldiers and policemen are supposed to be two entirely different occupations. Police are sworn to serve and protect their community, soldiers are trained to kill.
 
2013-04-26 12:39:24 AM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: winchester92: I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him Slip Away
Out of kindness, I suppose..."

You have a really unhealthy obsession with outlaws. Just saying. Protip: romanticizing lawbreakers doesn't make them innocent.


"Pancho needs your prayers it's true
But save a few for Whidbey too
He only did what he had to do
And now he's growing old..."


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

More like "come up with actual arguments that aren't fueled by total kneejerk paranoid loathing of authority figures" but you clearly aren't up to the task.


Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

You "respect" authority figures PROVIDED that that you PERCEIVE that they are "in tune" with your myopic version of your Liberal Utopia - little realizing that the powers you willingly grant to those you "love" might at any moment be handed to those you despise.

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


whidbey: Also, distracting from criticism of your unhealthy fantasies by shaming others' marijuana usage is equally disingenuous.


I have NO problem with the MJ, Whid... except that in YOUR case, the imaginary support thereof (Obama/Liberal hypocrisy) seems to skew your opinion in favor of those who would spitefully USE you - and us.

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.


I don't often use all caps
BUT WHEN I DO, I MEAN BUSINESS
 
2013-04-26 12:39:49 AM  

pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.


and judging by this video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3XsD-U1oOk, seeing them casually walk around, gun down, with people walking their dogs, talking to folks, they that first video was likely right after the gun fight, when they had no idea if he was still within 100 yards and armed, and judging by the light, it looks REALLY early.  So i'm gonna say that first video was the immediate 'we just got ieds and bullets thrown at us and a cop killed' search, which ended up with the larger 'lets just walk around' search.
 
2013-04-26 12:40:31 AM  

Theaetetus: links136: pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.

I also know there were pictures from farkers of cops going through their home, said they were super friendly about it.  I don't know anymore, i'm guessing they searched like this in the immediate 2 by 2 area.  I'd like to hear from local residents about everything that happened.

Huh. If you watch the video, people come out with their hands on their heads. Some of them then lower their hands, and get yelled at to put them back up. Why? It was immediately obvious that none of them were the bomber.
I also counted them getting frisked multiple times - once by the guy at the bottom of the stairs, and then again once they were by the truck.


Now compare that and the light, then compare it to this  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3XsD-U1oOk
 
2013-04-26 12:41:23 AM  

whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.
You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.


Can I add something here too? The searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment because nothing found in your home would have been allowable as evidence in court. If they found you did something illegal -like you removed that tag off of your mattress that reads DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW - they can't convict you for it.

The police were 'searching' for the suspect, but it's not the same thing as a 'search' as defined under the 4th Amendment. It's not. At all.
 
2013-04-26 12:43:14 AM  

links136: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

you mean the guy with the dude shooting at them, throwing ieds and leaving pressure cooker bombs while driving over his brother and breaking barricades? They were probably making sure these were the boston bomber suspects.


Time is linear, man. You can't use the -ing suffix for something that happened in the past. The Dude may abide, but exigent circumstances do not. Nobody here is saying that while these two assholes were actually shooting at them, the police were violating anybody's rights.

What I and others in this thread are saying is that after the shooting was over, the police were not justified in the measures they took to track down and apprehend the remaining asshole.
 
2013-04-26 12:43:17 AM  

farkinglizardking: pedrop357: farkinglizardking: I must have missed the part where they beat up innocent citizens and let a few homes get blown up by IED's from some psycho.

Oh, wait.... that didn't happen.

I'm not fan of LE but I would have let them into my home in this situation. I doubt they'd care about the bong on my kitchen counter...

You say that now.

I say it now and again. I don't like the way they carried out this situation but there is very little precedent for dealing with rampaging bombers roaming free in a densely populated area.

But the mother says they were innocent, so...


You bring up a good point.  There are enough anti-government comments here to make me believe there are more than a few conspiracy theorists.  Anyone want to take the moms side and say that the blood was really paint?  That is how silly the 'martial law' type arguments sound to the, well, mentally balanced.
 
2013-04-26 12:43:28 AM  

TopoGigo: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.


Let's say the police saw the suspect (an armed and extremely dangerous individual believed to be responsible for several deaths and a great deal of destruction) enter one specific house. Would they need to get a warrant before they could go inside?
 
2013-04-26 12:43:41 AM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: whidbey: Amos Quito: winchester92: I live in Watertown and tow for the state and local police, I towed one of the smashed and shot-up police cruisers from the scene of the shootout. It's incredible how much of the story the media got wrong. They also never mentioned the name of the boat. I know it because I have friends who know the owner personally, and we looked up the boat name in the Watertown Yacht Club directory. BTW, it's "Slip Away II". Is that freaky or what ??

"All the Federales say
They could have had him any day
They only let him Slip Away
Out of kindness, I suppose..."

You have a really unhealthy obsession with outlaws. Just saying. Protip: romanticizing lawbreakers doesn't make them innocent.


"Pancho needs your prayers it's true
But save a few for Whidbey too
He only did what he had to do
And now he's growing old..."


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

More like "come up with actual arguments that aren't fueled by total kneejerk paranoid loathing of authority figures" but you clearly aren't up to the task.


Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

You "respect" authority figures PROVIDED that that you PERCEIVE that they are "in tune" with your myopic version of your Liberal Utopia - little realizing that the powers you willingly grant to those you "love" might at any moment be handed to those you despise.

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


whidbey: Also, distracting from criticism of your unhealthy fantasies by shaming others' marijuana usage is equally disingenuous.


I have NO problem with the MJ, Whid... except that in YOUR case, the imaginary support thereof (Obama/Liberal hypocrisy) seems to skew your opinion in favor of those who would spitefully USE you - and us.

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.


No it's about you hurling patronizing paranoid non-sequiturs at the wall and hoping someone's that naive to take them seriously. At least you think that's what it's about. And when confronted, you like to pretend said criticism doesn't apply to you, the other person must be high/an Obama supporter/some kid.
 
2013-04-26 12:43:54 AM  

StopLurkListen: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: TopoGigo: whidbey: Because a suspected mass murder wannabe eluding capture isn't probable cause enough to go on a manhunt.

Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.

Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.

Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.

Yeah I know what "probable cause" means.
You clearly don't. And no warrant was required here. I swear some of you should have to take a mandatory Constitution civics class.

Can I add something here too? The searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment because nothing found in your home would have been allowable as evidence in court. If they found you did something illegal -like you removed that tag off of your mattress that reads DO NOT REMOVE UNDER PENALTY OF LAW - they can't convict you for it.

The police were 'searching' for the suspect, but it's not the same thing as a 'search' as defined under the 4th Amendment. It's not. At all.


I agree completely, I was actually planning on posting a similar comment, but the vodak doesn't let me articulate so well at 1 am on the east coast.

Unfortunately, logic doesn't really exist on the internet, so let the farktards scream about their rights being violated some more.
 
2013-04-26 12:44:15 AM  

links136: Now compare that and the light, then compare it to this


... what exactly am I comparing? What's your point?
 
2013-04-26 12:44:58 AM  

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

Let's say the police saw the suspect (an armed and extremely dangerous individual believed to be responsible for several deaths and a great deal of destruction) enter one specific house. Would they need to get a warrant before they could go inside?


No.  But that's not what happened here.
 
2013-04-26 12:46:10 AM  

TopoGigo: links136: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

you mean the guy with the dude shooting at them, throwing ieds and leaving pressure cooker bombs while driving over his brother and breaking barricades? They were probably making sure these were the boston bomber suspects.

Time is linear, man. You can't use the -ing suffix for something that happened in the past. The Dude may abide, but exigent circumstances do not. Nobody here is saying that while these two assholes were actually shooting at them, the police were violating anybody's rights.

What I and others in this thread are saying is that after the shooting was over, the police were not justified in the measures they took to track down and apprehend the remaining asshole.


Okay, so what should they have done exactly after he ran off?
 
2013-04-26 12:46:44 AM  

Amos Quito: luxup: Amos Quito: luxup: Just wondering something.  I was listening on the scanner that Friday and I remember after that first firefight someone was saying to make sure to load up on the rubber bullets.  I don't remember the exact words but he mentioned rubber bullets twice and I certainly had the impression they were not using live ammo.  I figured they wanted to get this guy alive.

Accepting that they were using rubber bullets instead of live ammo, could they have opened fire with the intent to incapacitate without killing thereby making his having a gun irrelevant?  If he had a gun or not (which it looks like he didn't at the time), could pelting him with rubber shots been a tactic to make him easier to approach?


Yeah, they were after assailant(s) that they believed just KILLED A COP.

I'm sure they were all about the "less than lethal" mentality.


/Think of Chris Dorner

How does any of that change that they were using rubber bullets?


I don't know that anyone was using "rubber bullets", and neither do you.

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

Did they mean what they said? Or were they playing to their AUDIENCE (you)?

 Maybe "rubber bullets" is cop code for KILL THAT MOTHERFARKER!


/Got evidence?


Wow!  Like you would listen to evidence.  And I'm sure that the cops, who had to finally remind everyone over the scanner that their mikes were open were putting on a show for us.
 
2013-04-26 12:47:40 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: I would expect this kind of total manhunt knowing incredibly dangerous the suspects were, and definitely after the subsequent events in Watertown.

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this.

Man, I really wish I could write you off as a troll and be done with it. I mean, I've seen you go clear off the rails crusading for the Democratic establishment plenty of times (in fact, you're the only leftie I have marked in troll/disruptive/stupid red3) but I've never seen you lose your sh*t over something so stupid that doesn't directly relate to a party line. Sadly, I just don't get an asshole, satire, moron, or troll vibe from you so I have to believe this is how you really think. I may consider changing your label from "Democratic party crusader" to "Yells at own shopping cart full of garbage".


Once again you have no concept of what the term "probable cause" means and you are resorting to personal attacks when confronted. Not going to repeat this information again.
 
2013-04-26 12:48:39 AM  

pedrop357: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: Seriously? Are we even talking about the same thing here? Are you honestly saying that the fact that a terrorism suspect was believed to be hiding somewhere in a multi-block area gives probable cause for police to search multiple houses without warrants? Even Scalia can't believe what an asshole you are.

Let's say the police saw the suspect (an armed and extremely dangerous individual believed to be responsible for several deaths and a great deal of destruction) enter one specific house. Would they need to get a warrant before they could go inside?

No.  But that's not what happened here.


Indeed; rather than one particular house, the suspect was believed to be in a location that contained a number of houses.
 
2013-04-26 12:49:10 AM  

links136: pedrop357: links136: They didn't search houses, they searched the yards. They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB& in dex=12

Yeah, super voluntary.

and judging by this video  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3XsD-U1oOk, seeing them casually walk around, gun down, with people walking their dogs, talking to folks, they that first video was likely right after the gun fight, when they had no idea if he was still within 100 yards and armed, and judging by the light, it looks REALLY early.  So i'm gonna say that first video was the immediate 'we just got ieds and bullets thrown at us and a cop killed' search, which ended up with the larger 'lets just walk around' search.


OK, so that may be understandable on a human level, but it doesn't make it OK. For instance, if you raped my sister, I would be wrong to beat you to death. It's understandable, but still wrong, and I'm still going to jail.

OK, so that's an ass analogy, but I'm too sleepy to come up with a better one. Bottom line is that we pay the cops to be the law and they need to be held to that standard. The fact that they're scared, or hopped up on adrenaline, or dreaming of Dirty Harry, or whatever does not give them the right to exceed their authority.
 
Displayed 50 of 424 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

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


Report