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 12:49:41 AM  

whidbey: 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.



Here's your "authoritay" whidbey.

As long as you think Obey or FineeeSteineee is behind it, you feel "safe".

But put BushBaby, Cheney or Rummy in charge - and what say you then, Partisan Boy?


/Power changes hands
//Surrender with caution
///Get it, yet?
 
2013-04-26 12:49:47 AM  

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

... what exactly am I comparing? What's your point?


The video upthread, or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB&i n dex=12 , and that video.  My point?

The first video was obviously the immediate area after the gunfight, the 2nd video was obviously during the day much after the gun fight.  My point?  RIght after, there WAS immediate threat in the immediate area.  Remember, they only pulled out because it was dark.  During the day?  Not quite.
 
2013-04-26 12:50:03 AM  

luxup: 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.


Stoplurklisten said it better than I can. If the cops searching your house has found anything illegal they couldn't use it in court. Unless it was related to terrorism. Most likely they'd be itching to off the person who shot a cop sitting in his car, so they wouldn't care about some UMASS students with an &th of weed and a gravity bong.
 
2013-04-26 12:51:06 AM  

farkinglizardking: 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


Seriously why do I have to be the guy who has to call out all these paranoid right wing meatheads in these threads? Where's a Farker when you need him?
 
2013-04-26 12:51:31 AM  
It doesn't matter what really happened. All that matters is that you get angry and frightened.
Doesn't matter who at, or what about.
Film at eleven, folks.
 
2013-04-26 12:51:48 AM  

TopoGigo: 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.


.....


.... what?
 
2013-04-26 12:51:54 AM  

luxup: 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 ...


Did I say let them go?  No.  I don't know why people think that disagreeing with your government when it comes to things like security matters makes you batshiat crazy or some conspiracy theorist.  I just happen to think that our government does a consistently poor job in matters of security.  They are bloated agencies which are ineffective and don't have the proper respect for our rights.

I certainly would have sent police to try and find them in places I really thought they would be to apprehend them.  And I would have guarded likely targets.  I would have discouraged public gatherings.  Sure a few shows of force would be effective I would think in keeping them from performing repeat attacks.

Aside from that, I would think that they could have apprehended them by basic gumshoe type of detective work.
 
2013-04-26 12:52:33 AM  

luxup: 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.


Ass u me.

Again, let's see that video you keep referencing. I promise I'll watch and listen. I'll even have my legal pad out with a pen. If it supports your assertions, I will acknowledge.

/But what do I know?
//Just about to get a J.D. is all...
 
2013-04-26 12:54:15 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.


There is nothing preventing the police from useing knowledge they gained from conducting future operations to gain evidence, though it is rediculous to presume there was any intent other than looking for the suspects and protecting the public and themselves.  The reports that they appeared to storm into folks homes is understandable as they were likely full of adrenaline. If the police descovered a pile of dead bodies in an unrelated persons apartment, they would find other ways to collect evidence with the knowlege a manjor crime had been commited.  If they saw your bong on the table, they really wouldn't give a damn.
 
2013-04-26 12:55:10 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?


If the police have a reasonable belief that that suspect continues to pose a threat, then hell no. That's the very reason for the probable cause exemptions. The cops do have a tendency to stretch the spirit of it for suspects they damned well could wait for a warrant before arresting, but for this particular asshole it would be perfectly reasonable to search that house. In fact, if they had seen the asshole enter a small 4 or 6 unit apartment building, it would have been reasonable to search every apartment. Much less certain than that, though, and you lose probable cause.
 
2013-04-26 12:57:01 AM  

Amos Quito: whidbey: 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.


Here's your "authoritay" whidbey.

As long as you think Obey or FineeeSteineee is behind it, you feel "safe".

But put BushBaby, Cheney or Rummy in charge - and what say you then, Partisan Boy?


/Power changes hands
//Surrender with caution
///Get it, yet?


Yeah I totally get it. You're making pompous bullshiat assumptions and trying to pass them off as fact, while choosing to ignore spot-on condemnation being leveled at you.
 
2013-04-26 12:58:41 AM  

TopoGigo: 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?

If the police have a reasonable belief that that suspect continues to pose a threat, then hell no. That's the very reason for the probable cause exemptions. The cops do have a tendency to stretch the spirit of it for suspects they damned well could wait for a warrant before arresting, but for this particular asshole it would be perfectly reasonable to search that house. In fact, if they had seen the asshole enter a small 4 or 6 unit apartment building, it would have been reasonable to search every apartment. Much less certain than that, though, and you lose probable cause.


The police in this case had very good reason to believe that the guy was somewhere inside the area that had been cordoned off. It just so happened that this area contained a number of houses.
 
2013-04-26 12:59:30 AM  
The classic, American, exemplar of how it's done (3:43 cops going down owing to self-targeting, i.e., ricochets):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wnB8a-sRiQo

Why the Marine `chopper' was `deployed' to New Orleans to `powder-down' the concrete of the  `bunker' atop the Howard Johnson's , in `73:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Essex

TheManofPA:

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

Plenty of spud monkeys would have a vested interest in remembering it thus, if they could recall anything beyond the new truth from the glass teat at the top of the hour.

Maybe younger brother should take a page from Rudolph's justification (just replace `abortion/babies/murders' with moslems/infidels/etc):

In the summer of 1996, the world converged upon Atlanta for the Olympic Games. Under the protection and auspices of the regime in Washington, millions of people came to celebrate the ideals of global socialism. Multinational corporations invested billions of dollars, and Washington organized an army of security to protect the games. The purpose of the attack on July 27th at Centennial Park was to confound, anger and embarrass the Washington government in the eyes of the world for its abominable sanctioning of abortion on demand

The plan was to force the cancellation of the Games, or at least create a state of insecurity to empty the streets around the venues and thereby eat into the vast amounts of money invested. The plan was conceived in haste and carried out with limited resources, planning and preparation - it was a monster that kept getting out of control the more I got into it. Because I could not acquire the necessary high explosives, I had to dismiss the unrealistic notion of knocking down the power grid surrounding Atlanta and thereby pulling the plug on the Olympics for their duration.


/one Army Of God or another, nevermind... Allah Akbar, et al
 
2013-04-26 12:59:51 AM  

whidbey: 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.


I've asserted a definition of probable cause; you have not. I'm not going to ask for a citation, because I'm too lazy to look for one myself, but I'd at least like you to explain your definition of probable cause. Please bear in mind that there is a lesser definition of probable cause to be issued a warrant as stated in the Fourth Amendment than the standard you need to meet to search without a warrant. I can't think of any reasonable definition that satisfies what you seem to be saying it is.
 
2013-04-26 01:00:12 AM  

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

... what exactly am I comparing? What's your point?

The video upthread, or this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&list=PLC922E4EB14D02FAB&i n dex=12 , and that video.  My point?

The first video was obviously the immediate area after the gunfight, the 2nd video was obviously during the day much after the gun fight.


Wat?
(i) The gunfight was near Memorial Drive. Both videos are in the residential are behind the Watertown mall.
(ii) The gunfight was at 1 am. One of those videos is late afternoon, and the other is around noon, judging from the shadows. Neither were "obviously the immediate area after the gunfight".

My point?  RIght after, there WAS immediate threat in the immediate area.  Remember, they only pulled out because it was dark.  During the day?  Not quite.

... I think you're watching a different video than the rest of us.
 
2013-04-26 01:03:11 AM  
I'm sure this is here say and conjecture but this guy I work with is buddies with some of the cops on the scene, and apparently they saw the kid and shot him 2 or 3 times point blank with a silenced pistol.


Guy is probably lying, but he said this literally the day after the kid was found in the boat.

/csb.jpg

/just saying what I heard.
 
2013-04-26 01:03:29 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: 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.

I've asserted a definition of probable cause; you have not. I'm not going to ask for a citation, because I'm too lazy to look for one myself, but I'd at least like you to explain your definition of probable cause. Please bear in mind that there is a lesser definition of probable cause to be issued a warrant as stated in the Fourth Amendment than the standard you need to meet to search without a warrant. I can't think of any reasonable definition that satisfies what you seem to be saying it is.


Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.
 
2013-04-26 01:05:27 AM  

Theaetetus: (i) The gunfight was near Memorial Drive. Both videos are in the residential are behind the Watertown mall.


Correction, for the sake of not confusing the issues - the gunfight was on Laurel St. That house, however, is not on Laurel St.
 
2013-04-26 01:09:55 AM  

farkinglizardking: luxup: 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.

Ass u me.

Again, let's see that video you keep referencing. I promise I'll watch and listen. I'll even have my legal pad out with a pen. If it supports your assertions, I will acknowledge.

/But what do I know?
//Just about to get a J.D. is all...


Just google it and you will see many others heard it as well.  It was chatter on the scanner of what was going on and if you were listening to the scanner it was obvious to you that the media was not.

Piece of advice.  Before you get that J.D. I advise you work on your listening skills and paying attention.  I have to give those lessons to my kids all the time.  You will notice that I said I heard it on the scanner.  I don't see where I mentioned a video or said I saw it on a video.

/That kind of sloppiness can lose you a case.
//Just super observant is all.
 
2013-04-26 01:11:05 AM  

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: 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?

If the police have a reasonable belief that that suspect continues to pose a threat, then hell no. That's the very reason for the probable cause exemptions. The cops do have a tendency to stretch the spirit of it for suspects they damned well could wait for a warrant before arresting, but for this particular asshole it would be perfectly reasonable to search that house. In fact, if they had seen the asshole enter a small 4 or 6 unit apartment building, it would have been reasonable to search every apartment. Much less certain than that, though, and you lose probable cause.

The police in this case had very good reason to believe that the guy was somewhere inside the area that had been cordoned off. It just so happened that this area contained a number of houses.


"A number"? Let's not get too specific here or anything. "A number" of houses is too many for probable cause. I don't care how loose you want to get with your definitions of PC, it doesn't extend very deep into the fractions. I think that if you are 20% certain that Hitler is in my house, maybe I'd call that probable cause. I mean, even though the word probable is right in the name. The fact is, the police couldn't have been 5% sure that Justin Bomber here was in any particular house. I mean, what is the probability he was still in the search area? What was the probability that he was inside any of the houses, as opposed to in a shed, a bush, a tree, a bunker, a chickenhouse, an outhouse, or wearing a pink flamingo suit? You take that already less than 100% probability, then divide it by this "a number" of houses, and you'll come up with a pretty low-ass chance of finding him in any particular house. That ain't no kind of probable cause in my world.
 
2013-04-26 01:11:47 AM  

Fixxor: I'm sure this is here say and conjecture but this guy I work with is buddies with some of the cops on the scene, and apparently they saw the kid and shot him 2 or 3 times point blank with a silenced pistol.


Guy is probably lying, but he said this literally the day after the kid was found in the boat.

/csb.jpg

/just saying what I heard.


Sorry the guy I work with said the cops shot the kid 2 or 3 times in the boat with a silenced pistol.


/like a game of clue in this thread
 
2013-04-26 01:13:17 AM  

luxup: farkinglizardking: luxup: 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.

Ass u me.

Again, let's see that video you keep referencing. I promise I'll watch and listen. I'll even have my legal pad out with a pen. If it supports your assertions, I will acknowledge.

/But what do I know?
//Just about to get a J.D. is all...

Just google it and you will see many others heard it as well.  It was chatter on the scanner of what was going on and if you were listening to the scanner it was obvious to you that the media was not.

Piece of advice.  Before you get that J.D. I advise you work on your listening skills a ...


Well, obviously googling something is a legitimate source.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of results that pop up when you google said subject in question. If you have such insider knowledge, just post a farking link. I'm still not sure which video/audio/animated GIF you're referencing.

I will listen, I just have to know what to listen to.
 
2013-04-26 01:13:36 AM  

farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.


The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.
 
2013-04-26 01:15:02 AM  

TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.


Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?
 
2013-04-26 01:15:09 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'd be surprised.
 
2013-04-26 01:16:09 AM  
Greylight~

"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."

Nice...Thanks,
 
2013-04-26 01:17:21 AM  

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: 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?

If the police have a reasonable belief that that suspect continues to pose a threat, then hell no. That's the very reason for the probable cause exemptions. The cops do have a tendency to stretch the spirit of it for suspects they damned well could wait for a warrant before arresting, but for this particular asshole it would be perfectly reasonable to search that house. In fact, if they had seen the asshole enter a small 4 or 6 unit apartment building, it would have been reasonable to search every apartment. Much less certain than that, though, and you lose probable cause.

The police in this case had very good reason to believe that the guy was somewhere inside the area that had been cordoned off. It just so happened that this area contained a number of houses.


Not good enough for a warrant.  No judge is going to grant them a fishing license to troll a huge block of houses for a suspect.  They have to be able to articulate a specific reason why they want to search a given house and have to detail precisely what they are going to look for.  It's written like that for a reason.  The Founders were not pleased with the way the British would just go house to house whenever they wanted and tear it all apart to see whey they could find.  They wanted to be very clear that the police can't use exactly these tactics that were used in Watertown.

I know they wanted the guy, but if you shouldn't give up your Rights for the illusion of security.  Those cops should have known better than to play dress up in their tacticool pretend army gear and terrorize the decent folks with their jack booted storm trooper imitation.

Here's the deal, if this had been a well healed neighborhood, with lots of rich people (the kind that are lawyers and doctors and have lawyers on their speed dial), do you really think they'd have tried this crap?  Can you see them trying to pull this storm trooper put your hands up, get out of your house stuff with rich folks?  Nope, they'd have so many lawsuits it would bury them.  The Chief's phone would have been ringing off the hook.  They only got away with this because most of us middle class people don't have lawyers and don't know the Chief's personal cell number because we play golf with him and the Mayor on Sunday...
 
2013-04-26 01:18:06 AM  

TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.


I'm not condoning unreasonable search and seizure either. However, given the circumstances, (bear in mind this is all hypothetical because I don't live in Boston) I would let them do a quick sweep to be sure I didn't have a potential terrorist in my closet.

It doesn't make it right, but there's no precedent for the LE to follow here. Give me another situation post 9/11 where there was a suspected terrorist roaming a residential neighborhood with live explosives. The handbook doesn't contain a scenario for this....

Of course, they probably don't read the handbook...
 
2013-04-26 01:19:05 AM  

luxup: 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?


First, I would have left all of the military equipment at the military equipment depot. Then I would have had the bus loads of normally uniformed and equipped officers blanket the area, in a similar fashion, with instructions to not waste time searching obviously non-hostage homes. When something smelled fishy, I would have called in the experts, either getting a bench warrant or somehow assuring the occupants that the plain sight rule was on vacation. Vacant houses would be surveilled until search permission was granted by the owner.

Basically, I would have acted within the bounds of the constitution.

BUT THIS IS AM EMERGENCY ZOMG CONSTITUTION IS VOID
 
2013-04-26 01:19:55 AM  

StopLurkListen: 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.


Doesn't matter. The 4th contains two clauses: the right of the people to be secure in their persons and houses, and no seizure without warrant. Only the seizure aspect applies to admissibility in prosecution. You have a claim for civil redress for the unlawful search and displacement.

There's also arguably a 3rd amendment claim, and those are extraordinarily rare. Soldiers were quartering in houses in a time of peace without the consent of the owners.
 
2013-04-26 01:20:18 AM  

Fixxor: I'm sure this is here say and conjecture but this guy I work with is buddies with some of the cops on the scene, and apparently they saw the kid and shot him 2 or 3 times point blank with a silenced pistol.


I suppose that would explain the "close range, surely it must be self-inflicted" wound to the throat.

But yeah, we're definitely gonna need a cite for that. Interesting though...
 
2013-04-26 01:20:41 AM  

Theaetetus: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?


what would they base the warrant off of? the illegal search for a terrorist the week before?

i'm not saying it would be a pain for the individual in question, but ultimately it would end up with no charges. i'm not saying the cops wouldn't pursue, but in such a tense situation the last thing they'd be thinking about was some misdemeanor paraphenlia charge...
 
2013-04-26 01:26:26 AM  

This text is now purple: There's also arguably a 3rd amendment claim, and those are extraordinarily rare. Soldiers were quartering in houses in a time of peace without the consent of the owners.


Well, that's a pretty long stretch. There's enough violation of the Fourth here without inventing new definitions for "quartering".
 
2013-04-26 01:26:51 AM  
All I can say is, in my experience, if you have some (definitely not caused by you) emergency in your house that ends up with the cops and/or firemen coming in, and they find weed, you will get arrested for it.

Perhaps in this case they were excited enough about the main event to not bother, but... probably best at least try to hide things before they come busting in.
 
2013-04-26 01:29:11 AM  

LessO2: It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not.   There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.


And we wonder how Germany turned into Nazi Germany.
 
2013-04-26 01:29:33 AM  

TopoGigo: This text is now purple: There's also arguably a 3rd amendment claim, and those are extraordinarily rare. Soldiers were quartering in houses in a time of peace without the consent of the owners.

Well, that's a pretty long stretch. There's enough violation of the Fourth here without inventing new definitions for "quartering".


"Soldiers kicked me out and seized my house" is pretty close to the definition of quartering. For SCOTUS purposes, National Guardsmen kicking striking prison guards out of their barracks counted as quartering.
 
2013-04-26 01:30:30 AM  

DrPainMD: LessO2: It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not.   There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.

And we wonder how Germany turned into Nazi Germany.


I forgot about that time the Jews blew up a German sporting event. Those history textbooks they give our kids... sheesh...
 
2013-04-26 01:32:57 AM  

haterade: the DHS should be trigger happy since they fire over 1,000 more bullets per officer per year than US Army soldiers


Four quals a year for some agencies, two weapons (pistol and rifle) makes 800 easy.

You should be complaining about how little practice the military is doing.
 
2013-04-26 01:33:51 AM  

farkinglizardking: Give me another situation post 9/11 where there was a suspected terrorist roaming a residential neighborhood with live explosives. The


fark your post 9/11 world.

We survived Sacco and Vanzetti, Metesky, Kaczynski, and Ayers just fine without soldiers going through houses door to door.
 
2013-04-26 01:36:38 AM  

sporkme:  BUT THIS IS AM EMERGENCY ZOMG CONSTITUTION IS VOID


Ohhhhh d-d-dear! Won't somebody PLEASE think about the  children constitution?
 
2013-04-26 01:38:11 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.


In light of everything that went down that week, and more importantly that day and night, exactly what was it about these searches that was "unreasonable?" You know, because that's what the Constitution specifically prohibits . . . "unreasonable searches and seizures." Probable cause, reasonable suspicion, etc. all irrelevant under these circumstances.
 
2013-04-26 01:38:34 AM  

farkinglizardking: Theaetetus: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?

what would they base the warrant off of? the illegal search for a terrorist the week before?


"Anonymous" tip describing in great detail the location of the weed, which could be sufficient for a warrant under Illinois v. Gates.

i'm not saying it would be a pain for the individual in question, but ultimately it would end up with no charges. i'm not saying the cops wouldn't pursue, but in such a tense situation the last thing they'd be thinking about was some misdemeanor paraphenlia charge...

Nope, but they might put a checkmark on a list of houses checked with a note saying "weed found, come back next week with a warrant".
 
2013-04-26 01:39:49 AM  

sporkme: BREAKING
NY POST REPORTS THEY HAD sqrt(-1) GUNS, THEORIZE THEY WERE RADICALS, NOT € REALS, MEMBERS OF IMAGINARY SEcT

iGuns to be confiscated, bricked


/nothing can be derived


Step away from the computer once in a while, get some fresh air.  You're trying to hard and we're worried you might sprain something.
 
2013-04-26 01:40:26 AM  

farkinglizardking: luxup: farkinglizardking: luxup: 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.

Ass u me.

Again, let's see that video you keep referencing. I promise I'll watch and listen. I'll even have my legal pad out with a pen. If it supports your assertions, I will acknowledge.

/But what do I know?
//Just about to get a J.D. is all...

Just google it and you will see many others heard it as well.  It was chatter on the scanner of what was going on and if you were listening to the scanner it was obvious to you that the media was not.

Piece of advice.  Before you get that J.D. I advise you work on your listening s ...


farkinglizardking: Well, obviously googling something is a legitimate source.

There are hundreds, if not thousands of results that pop up when you google said subject in question. If you have such insider knowledge, just post a farking link. I'm still not sure which video/audio/animated GIF you're referencing.

I will listen, I just have to know what to listen to.


The source was the Boston police scanner.  I thought that was a given when I said that I listened to it on the scanner.  Not sure how I can be more clear on that.  Just pointing out that you will find plenty of cases of other people having heard the same thing over the police scanners.  Just search for watertown shootout rubber bullets but you will get other reports of what people heard on the scanner.  Sorry but I don't know where you can find a link to the Boston police scanner transcripts for Friday 4/19/2013.  If you know where to get it then give a listen.  If you do then you will hear that when they were closing in on the boat they were using rubber bullets.

Sorry I wasn't recording it or taking notes.  Other people posted (like they do here) on other sites...

-If you listen to the police radio tapes you would know that they were using rubber bullets

-I monitored the scanner feed throughout the entire incident from carjacking to apprehension, and the FBI HRT used non-lethal rounds, flash bangs, and tear gas (CS).

-They hit him with at least ten flashbangs and rubber bullets for over an hour listen to the audio.

Like I said, I don't know where to get police scanner audio.  I'm sure you can use the JD your quick to tell people about to find out how to get it.  When you do give it a listen.  Shouldn't be hard to find if you go to the correct time.
 
2013-04-26 01:40:48 AM  

farkinglizardking: I'm not condoning unreasonable search and seizure either. However, given the circumstances, (bear in mind this is all hypothetical because I don't live in Boston) I would let them do a quick sweep to be sure I didn't have a potential terrorist in my closet.


Well, maybe. If the cops come knocking on your door and ask to search your house, that's a horse of an entirely different color. I would definitely have let them search my yard to their heart's content, and probably an outbuilding or garage had they asked. I wasn't there, but I think that I would have assured them that I'd search my own house for them and let them know if I found any dashing young terrorists. Maybe if I were in that situation I'd have felt differently, though. The bottom line here is that the police are entirely justified in coming to your door and asking to search your house, but not to force you outside while they search your house without warrant or permission.
 
2013-04-26 01:40:55 AM  

This text is now purple: farkinglizardking: Give me another situation post 9/11 where there was a suspected terrorist roaming a residential neighborhood with live explosives. The

fark your post 9/11 world.

We survived Sacco and Vanzetti, Metesky, Kaczynski, and Ayers just fine without soldiers going through houses door to door.



Also, in the recent cases of this one and Kazczynski, the police did not find the person in question.  In the former, our bomber was out of the search net and was found by a citizen, and in the latter after many years of no progress,  the FBI effectively gave up, he was turned in by his brother.
 
2013-04-26 01:41:46 AM  

luxup: How does any of that change that they were using rubber bullets?  Cops may have wanted to kill the kid, I'm sure many did not.  They are professionals not bloodthirsty thugs.


Pollyanna, please pick up the bloody bullet-riddled and tazered for good measure courtesy phone.  Pollyanna?    please pick up the bloody bullet-riddled and tazered for good measure courtesy phone.
 
2013-04-26 01:41:50 AM  

IntertubeUser: After capturing the younger brother, my opinion of law enforcement improved a bit.  And now...this.  Cops are generally lying sacks of shiat who are marginally better than the scum they're after, but they are still generally lying sacks of shiat.

Never trust cops to tell the truth.  Ever.


Hear, hear!

"KNOCK, KNOCK!"
"Who's there?"
"COPS.  Let us in now!"
"Do you have a warrant?"
"No.  we're COPS.  Let us in now!"
"Hmmn.  Piss off.  And don't damage the door or I'll sue, mmnkay?"
 
2013-04-26 01:42:40 AM  

Theaetetus: farkinglizardking: Theaetetus: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: Searches and warrants are one thing. Whether or not the evidence obtained would hold up in a court is another. That is why I wouldn't be too terrified about the cops finding a tiny bag with some weed residue in it on my counter. They've got bigger fish to fry, they don't care about the little things.

The evidence doesn't hold up in court because the search violated your rights, not the other way around. Even if you never get face consequences, an illegal search is a prima facia violation of your rights. I understand your pragmatism, but I can't condone it.

Also, what about when they show up next week with a search warrant looking for your weed? Or are we supposed to prevent that they forgot everything they saw?

what would they base the warrant off of? the illegal search for a terrorist the week before?

"Anonymous" tip describing in great detail the location of the weed, which could be sufficient for a warrant under Illinois v. Gates.

i'm not saying it would be a pain for the individual in question, but ultimately it would end up with no charges. i'm not saying the cops wouldn't pursue, but in such a tense situation the last thing they'd be thinking about was some misdemeanor paraphenlia charge...

Nope, but they might put a checkmark on a list of houses checked with a note saying "weed found, come back next week with a warrant".


the legal ramifications, not to mention the exorbent court costs, would make any prosecutor extremely reluctant to pursue charges. not to mention that the public opinion would be overwhelmingly supporitive of the good citizen who allowed police to search his home while a known terrorist was on the loose. it is not fiscally responsible to attempt a misdemeanor drug search because of some possible evidence a swat officer saw under extreme duress.

i'm not fighting your logic, i'm just saying it's not reasonable for any LE department to carry out such an action. if the defendant got a decent lawyer they could tear that case to pieces in a matter of minutes. it's not worth the legal cost, especially when the taxpayers are demanding justification from their judicial system.
 
2013-04-26 01:42:55 AM  

TopoGigo: "A number"? Let's not get too specific here or anything. "A number" of houses is too many for probable cause.


It doesn't look like it works that way. They had cordoned off a specific area and had very good reason to believe he was in there (it's not as though they were just guessing); that, along with how dangerous the suspect was believed to be, pretty much guarantees that warrants would not be needed. According to this, it would seem that both types of exigent circumstances - enforcement of criminal law and community caretaking - were present in this situation (only one of them is necessary in order for warrantless search to be justified).

remus: Not good enough for a warrant. No judge is going to grant them a fishing license to troll a huge block of houses for a suspect.


The discussion isn't about what it takes to get a warrant for some generic suspect - it's about whether this was a situation where a warantless search would be allowed, and it looks like it was.
 
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


  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