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  
•       •       •

30967 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
 
HBK
2013-04-26 01:43:53 AM  

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.


It's a really famous song. You've probably heard it before, performed by Willie Nelson.
 
2013-04-26 01:44:35 AM  

TopoGigo: 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.


Again, I agree, but when did this scenario occur? If I didn't see the news article I apologize. But link me to such an injustice or otherwise don't toss out hypotheticals
 
2013-04-26 01:45:47 AM  

This text is now purple: 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.


Seized? I don't know about that. I'm not familiar with the court case you mentioned, but a search isn't a seizure, and a seizure isn't quartering troops, at least in the spirit of the Third. There's a reason the Third and Fourth aren't the same amendment. Now, had the cops comandeered a house to use as a temporary operations base, that could be a violation of the Third, but it's still not cut-and-dried.
 
2013-04-26 01:45:52 AM  

TopoGigo: THE POLICE CAN SHOULD NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA BUT THEY DO AND GET AWAY WITH IT EVERY SINGLE DAY AND THE ONLY REASON COPS AREN'T BEING NECKLACED BY THE DOZEN IS THAT IT DOESN'T USUALLY HAPPEN TO MIDDLE CLASS WHITE PEOPLE SO THE MIDDLE CLASS WHITE REPORTERS DON'T OBSESS ABOUT IT IN THE MIDDLE CLASS WHITE MEDIA SO FARK IT WHO MADE IT THROUGH ON AMERICAN IDOL THIS WEEK AND OMG WHY IS GAS SO EXPENSIVE AND NOW HERE'S DAVE WITH SPORTS?!?


ftfy.
 
2013-04-26 01:49:07 AM  

luxup: 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 ...


Your stupidity is getting a bit annoying.

You seem to have an intimate knowledge of the Boston PD operations last week, yet you haven't posted one credible transcript, audio, video, or link.

And yes, I googled what you suggested, but realized I have a real life and didn't want to sift through a bunch of garbage.

And if I'm hiding behind my J.D. here....

If you can't produce a credible source or witness in court, your opinion doesn't mean shiat. So get to it.

Obviously you know what I haven't listened to. Ever hear of full disclosure? The defense must turn over evidence to the prosecution, and vice-versa.
 
2013-04-26 01:49:15 AM  
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.

Basically, I would have had cops be cops, not soldiers.

The whole atmosphere of the thing was wrong. Cops want to be good guys in the long term as well as the short term, and I would have created an environment conducive to good behavior rather that ham fisted, Jack booted thug behavior.

zomg armchair quarterbacking...

BUT THIS IS AM EMERGENCY CONSTITUTION IS VOID

What If the emergency knocks on your door at an inconvenient moment? Do you trust them to unsee the incriminating evidence? The optional-but-not-optional house invasions are the problem

The whole situation just keeps getting derpier. I have zero doubt about the guilt of the brothers, but as American citizens we have rights, and I want the Constitution applied equally and blindly to all, without prejudice, exception or PARADES OF ARMORED VEHICLES AND BATTLE READY TRIGGER HAPPY BARREL ASSED DONUT MUNCHERS WTF.
 
2013-04-26 01:53:47 AM  

Biological Ali: 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).


The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts. We can also certainly agree that searching every house in the state is unreasonable. We already agree that searching one house is reasonable. I say that even the smaller search area of 2x2 blocks is an unreasonable number of houses to search, much less the 20x20 or whatever area that may or may not (there seems to be no reliable information) have been searched without warrants or permission.
 
2013-04-26 01:58:38 AM  

sporkme: 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 ...


I like your plan but I respectfully disagree.  You are operating with 20/20 hindsight but at the time all you really know is that a guy who could have help from anyone was in possession of explosives and showed that he would use them.

Every house was a potential danger and they have to approach it that way.  For all they know they could have entered a house with a whole basement full of extremists ready to fight.  No reason for them to believe that it could not have happened.  Sometimes the police shouldn't have to worry about saying please and thank you.  It's extremely rare, but this is one of those times.  The people who went through it seemed to realize it and for the most part seemed happy for it.

Now tell me they do something like that because it's Wednesday and Johny just doesn't look right and we have a problem.
 
2013-04-26 01:59:23 AM  

farkinglizardking: TopoGigo: 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.

Again, I agree, but when did this scenario occur? If I didn't see the news article I apologize. But link me to such an injustice or otherwise don't toss out hypotheticals


Well, there's a link to a newscast upthread about 70 comments or so. It's not definitive evidence that the cops performed searches without warrant or permission, but it's pretty damning nonetheless. Other commenters have mentioned, but not linked, more incriminating videos. Besides the fact that we've been arguing about it for the last 150 comments or so. In fact, we seem to have completely forgotten TFA in our rage; nobody's mentioned the fact that it claims that Justin Bomber was unarmed at the time of his capture but the cops shot the hell out of him.
 
2013-04-26 02:01:54 AM  
Wow, this thread really brought out the boot-lickers, didn't it?
 
2013-04-26 02:03:00 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".


evidence discovered outside of Constitutional guidelines is forever inadmissable, *along with everything else that evidence leads to.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree
 
2013-04-26 02:03:28 AM  

TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.


As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.
 
2013-04-26 02:05:38 AM  

TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: TopoGigo: 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.

Again, I agree, but when did this scenario occur? If I didn't see the news article I apologize. But link me to such an injustice or otherwise don't toss out hypotheticals

Well, there's a link to a newscast upthread about 70 comments or so. It's not definitive evidence that the cops performed searches without warrant or permission, but it's pretty damning nonetheless. Other commenters have mentioned, but not linked, more incriminating videos. Besides the fact that we've been arguing about it for the last 150 comments or so. In fact, we seem to have completely forgotten TFA in our rage; nobody's mentioned the fact that it claims that Justin Bomber was unarmed at the time of his capture but the cops shot the hell out of him.


I'm not sure what we're arguing about anymore, so I'll throw out an olive branch.

I don't know of anyone being forced out of their homes by the militia roaming the streets. Nor do I know of anyone being charged because of said unwarranted searches in the Boston area.

I don't agree with the way these searches were conducted. But as I said in an earlier comment, there was no precedent for them to follow. The fact that no innocent civilians were killed is remarkable.

And the MSM was whining a week ago that he had four or five firearms on him. Him being unarmed is a fact that I just heard today. I'm not sure what to believe anymore.

My only hope is that someone analyzes this situation and establishes a police protocol for active terrorists suspects in a residential area.
 
2013-04-26 02:07:21 AM  

Biological Ali: 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.


Don't you think maybe, just maybe, this question should be answered by a JUDGE?  That's all I am asking.  They didn't bother.  Do you think they didn't go to a Judge because a) they knew they were in the right and didn't need warrants or b) they figured the judge would say no.
 
2013-04-26 02:10:30 AM  
farkinglizardking:
Your stupidity is getting a bit annoying.

As is your lack of understanding.

You seem to have an intimate knowledge of the Boston PD operations last week, yet you haven't posted one credible transcript, audio, video, or link.

I listened to the Boston police scanner live as it happened.  You obviously did not and are relying on news sources that were obviously not tuned into the scanner and did not report a lot of what was actually happening.

And yes, I googled what you suggested, but realized I have a real life and didn't want to sift through a bunch of garbage.

So don't expect me to do it for you.  This is not a court of law here.  I'm just telling you what I heard from a source that you didn't listen to so can't really just say that it didn't happen.

And if I'm hiding behind my J.D. here....
If you can't produce a credible source or witness in court, your opinion doesn't mean shiat. So get to it.
Obviously you know what I haven't listened to. Ever hear of full disclosure? The defense must turn over evidence to the prosecution, and vice-versa.

I tell you what, sue me then.  Then I'll get my lawyer to subpoena the Police scanner transcripts or the audio tape for you to listen to.  Otherwise, find it on your own.  If you know where to get it then tell me so I can tell you to find it on your own.
 
Seriously guy.  Are you really treating this like a court of law?  If you are that interested in it then go find the transcripts for the Boston police departments scanner traffic for that day and you will hear/read it for yourself.  I don't know where to get it, I'm no lawyer.

Besides, I don't have to prove what I heard to you.  If you only want to believe what you think you know and are not interested to find out for yourself what actually happened then well, I'm sure you will make a great lawyer.

Your off to a bang up start to your career though.  No interest in the truth.  Just what you want to believe.
 
2013-04-26 02:10:39 AM  

remus: Don't you think maybe, just maybe, this question should be answered by a JUDGE?


The whole point about exigent circumstances that justify warrantless searches is that they allow police to do it without going through a judge first.
 
2013-04-26 02:10:56 AM  

AndreMA: Wow, this thread really brought out the boot-lickers, didn't it?


You know, I don't think it's that. Sure, there are plenty of cop fellators on FARK, but none of the usual suspects are here. I think it's really two separate things.
Some people are scared of criminals, especially terrorists. They also have had generally positive interactions with the authorities, and don't think they have anything to hide from them. They believe that it's better to trust the police to protect them by whatever means are necessary than to cling to some paranoid delusion of a future police state.
Others hate this asshole, and others like him, so much that any means used to Kick His Ass are justified. After all, legal protections are designed for law-abiding citizens, not as a shield for criminal scumbags.
In my opinion, both of these positions are those of anti-American pussies, but you know what they say about opinions.
 
2013-04-26 02:15:54 AM  

luxup: farkinglizardking:
Your stupidity is getting a bit annoying.

As is your lack of understanding.

You seem to have an intimate knowledge of the Boston PD operations last week, yet you haven't posted one credible transcript, audio, video, or link.

I listened to the Boston police scanner live as it happened.  You obviously did not and are relying on news sources that were obviously not tuned into the scanner and did not report a lot of what was actually happening.

And yes, I googled what you suggested, but realized I have a real life and didn't want to sift through a bunch of garbage.

So don't expect me to do it for you.  This is not a court of law here.  I'm just telling you what I heard from a source that you didn't listen to so can't really just say that it didn't happen.

And if I'm hiding behind my J.D. here....
If you can't produce a credible source or witness in court, your opinion doesn't mean shiat. So get to it.
Obviously you know what I haven't listened to. Ever hear of full disclosure? The defense must turn over evidence to the prosecution, and vice-versa.

I tell you what, sue me then.  Then I'll get my lawyer to subpoena the Police scanner transcripts or the audio tape for you to listen to.  Otherwise, find it on your own.  If you know where to get it then tell me so I can tell you to find it on your own.
 
Seriously guy.  Are you really treating this like a court of law?  If you are that interested in it then go find the transcripts for the Boston police departments scanner traffic for that day and you will hear/read it for yourself.  I don't know where to get it, I'm no lawyer.

Besides, I don't have to prove what I heard to you.  If you only want to believe what you think you know and are not interested to find out for yourself what actually happened then well, I'm sure you will make a great lawyer.

Your off to a bang up start to your career though.  No interest in the truth.  Just what you want to believe.


*You're* off to...

And if you are going to quote "what I heard" as legally admissible evidence, perhaps you should look up the name Trayvon Martin and the way that case it playing out. I feel for that dispatcher...

My point is I didn't hear the scanner, haven't heard the scanner, don't care about the scanner because I'm not involved in the case. But if you're going to stick to your convictions you need to produce a source. What I've been saying has been pure conjecture, because I've had no evidence to contradict. But you keep speaking as if you have some inside knowledge, so reveal your source or shut the fark up.
 
2013-04-26 02:17:13 AM  

DeathByGeekSquad: 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.


Maybe they should extend this line of reasoning to marijuana criminals in black neighborhoods.

/wait. what?
 
2013-04-26 02:18:22 AM  

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.


I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown.  The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom.  One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks.  That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy?  He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing.  His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no.  And it was being filmed.  Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area.  That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will.  It just doesn't.  They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded.  Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong?
 
2013-04-26 02:21:46 AM  

Biological Ali: remus: Don't you think maybe, just maybe, this question should be answered by a JUDGE?

The whole point about exigent circumstances that justify warrantless searches is that they allow police to do it without going through a judge first.


Exigent means "requiring immediate aid or action".  That means they saw the guy run in here.  It means they followed a blood trail to your back window.  It means they heard gun shots from your house.  It does not mean "we lost the guy a few blocks from here and figure we'll just brute force the entire 20 block radius to find him, cause we really want him".
 
2013-04-26 02:22:43 AM  

remus: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.

I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown.  The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom.  One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks.  That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy?  He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing.  His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no.  And it was being filmed.  Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area.  That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will.  It just doesn't.  They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded.  Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong


So where is all this evidence (photos, videos, etc) of law-abiding citizens being forced out of their homes at gunpoint? Perhaps they just let the cops do a quick sweep and said cops left them alone...
 
2013-04-26 02:23:23 AM  

farkinglizardking: I don't know of anyone being forced out of their homes by the militia roaming the streets. Nor do I know of anyone being charged because of said unwarranted searches in the Boston area.


Well, I don't know that anyone was forced out of their homes. After all, the media f*cked up a whole lot of reporting, so we don't even know what we know. Based on what was reported, and the news video linked earlier, it certainly looks as if: a) some portion of the city was locked down, and people were forced to stay in their homes and b) some people were later politely escorted out of their homes at gunpoint while police searched their homes without warrants, permission, or what I would call even close to probable cause. If true, I feel this was a gross abuse of police power even for such an extraordinary circumstance as this. Give me a minute to scan through and I'll link the comment with the newscast.

My only hope is that someone analyzes this situation and establishes a police protocol for active terrorists suspects in a residential area.

I agree with you there, but I fear the protocols they come up with aren't going to be ones we'll like. I'd really like to see a bunch of Boston lawyers take some pro bono cases on behalf of residents and file dozens of lawsuits seeking damages of $1 each. I'm not looking for the city to pay for mistakes made; I'm looking for legal precedent saying police can't behave this way.
 
2013-04-26 02:24:59 AM  

remus: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.

I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown.  The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom.  One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks.  That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy?  He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing.  His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no.  And it was being filmed.  Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area.  That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will.  It just doesn't.  They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded.  Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong?


A little hyperbolic, but well said nonetheless.
 
2013-04-26 02:26:03 AM  

remus: You call him retarded. Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong?


I'll do you a favour and let you pretend that comment was a joke.
 
2013-04-26 02:27:05 AM  

StopLurkListen: 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".

evidence discovered outside of Constitutional guidelines is forever inadmissable, *along with everything else that evidence leads to.*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree


[ohyou.jpg]
It wouldn't be evidence discovered outside of Constitutional guidelines. It'd be evidence discovered pursuant to a properly executed warrant obtained under false pretenses. That's totally admissible, unless you can prove those false pretenses... and good luck, if that's your sole defense.
 
2013-04-26 02:27:32 AM  

farkinglizardking: remus: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.

I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown.  The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom.  One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks.  That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy?  He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing.  His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no.  And it was being filmed.  Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area.  That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will.  It just doesn't.  They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded.  Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong

So where is all this evidence (photos, videos, etc ...


http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html

Here's a news cast I posted earlier.

Up thread are a few youtube links.

The bottom line is they violated the 4th amendment rights of the citizens in their zeal to catch a suspect.  They only way exigent circumstances apply is when they have immediate knowledge or belief that the suspect is in that specific house.  There isn't a court in the land that will grant the cops a warrant to just search every house until they find their man.
 
2013-04-26 02:31:17 AM  

farkinglizardking: So where is all this evidence


remus: Here's a news cast I posted earlier.

Up thread are a few youtube links.


That is the link I was digging through the thread looking for. Like I said, it's not definitive evidence, but it convinced me that at least some number of people were treated like they lived in the old Soviet Bloc. Whether police behaved that way in a 2x2 block area, a 20x20 block area, or a city-wide area is immaterial. Some people's rights were violated.
 
2013-04-26 02:34:20 AM  
Rubber bullets are fully capable of punching respectable holes in people, especially at close range. So even if the scanner chat is right about loading up with rubber, the cops could easily perforate Dzohar the trainee terrorist in a fit of enthusiasm.

Little Bro is lucky he's still breathing.
 
2013-04-26 02:34:26 AM  

farkinglizardking: And if you are going to quote "what I heard" as legally admissible evidence, perhaps you should look up the name Trayvon Martin and the way that case it playing out. I feel for that dispatcher...

My point is I didn't hear the scanner, haven't heard the scanner, don't care about the scanner because I'm not involved in the case. But if you're going to stick to your convictions you need to produce a source. What I've been saying has been pure conjecture, because I've had no evidence to contradict. But you keep speaking as if you have some inside knowledge, so reveal your source or shut the fark up.


I have a bunch of time.  The farkin police scanner.  If you want to call that inside knowledge then go ahead otherwise I'll keep speaking like I heard the police scanner, which I did.  The only one treating this like a frickin court case is you.  I just asked a question on procedure based on my observation that they were using rubber bullets.  An observation I made based on what was said on the police scanner.  It was not on the news because guess what they were not listening too?  They also didn't report on a few people who were stopped by police and yelled at to get down on their knees, questioned and released which was broadcast over the...you guessed it, the police scanner but I guess that didn't happen either because you want the judge to rule on it first.

Listen, I'm sure your family is proud of you for studying law, you certainly are.  I'm sure you are chomping at the bit to get started but keep it for the classroom or the courtroom.  I really don't care and that you felt the need to tell a complete stranger on a fark thread, well, figure it out.

Or do I have to produce that answer for you as well?
 
2013-04-26 02:35:12 AM  
remus: There isn't a court in the land that will grant the cops a warrant to just search every house until they find their man.

Good thing that's not what they did.
 
2013-04-26 02:37:34 AM  

TopoGigo: remus: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.

I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown.  The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom.  One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks.  That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy?  He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing.  His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no.  And it was being filmed.  Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area.  That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will.  It just doesn't.  They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded.  Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong?

A little hyperbolic, but well said nonetheless.


Thanks.  All I want is for the police to just follow the law and abide by the Constitution.  Yes, it gets in the way.  Too bad.

Good night!
 
2013-04-26 02:38:43 AM  

remus: Exigent means "requiring immediate aid or action". That means they saw the guy run in here. It means they followed a blood trail to your back window. It means they heard gun shots from your house. It does not mean "we lost the guy a few blocks from here and figure we'll just brute force the entire 20 block radius to find him, cause we really want him".


Meanwhile, in the real world:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.
 
2013-04-26 02:39:12 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Rubber bullets are fully capable of punching respectable holes in people, especially at close range. So even if the scanner chat is right about loading up with rubber, the cops could easily perforate Dzohar the trainee terrorist in a fit of enthusiasm.

Little Bro is lucky he's still breathing.


Absolutely, I don't doubt it.  I was just wondering if it would be a legitimate tactic to take him down.  Open up a rubbery hell on him and then advance.  The thinking being that the rubber bullets would hurt him enough that he was no longer a threat with a high expectation that if he was penetrated by one or a few that it wold be easily treated compared to live ammo.

Or would they just say 'You crazy!' if that was actually suggested.
 
2013-04-26 02:43:15 AM  

Bonzo_1116: Dzohar Dozer the trainee terrorist


I think I like that better than Justin Bomber. I refuse to use the real name of anyone who commits mass murder while they're still in the news cycle, so I've been referring to him either as asshole (for obvious reasons) or Justin Bomber (due to his youth, his looks, and the fact that he's responsible for almost as much evil as that Canadian boy).
 
2013-04-26 02:48:47 AM  

Biological Ali: remus: Exigent means "requiring immediate aid or action". That means they saw the guy run in here. It means they followed a blood trail to your back window. It means they heard gun shots from your house. It does not mean "we lost the guy a few blocks from here and figure we'll just brute force the entire 20 block radius to find him, cause we really want him".

Meanwhile, in the real world:

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.


From your own goddamned citation:

There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Nobody here is saying the police didn't have the authority to search the one house they had probable cause--which is a stricter test than reasonable suspicion--to believe contained the asshole. We're saying they didn't have the authority to search four blocks worth of houses.
 
2013-04-26 03:00:01 AM  

rhiannon: 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

Damn some of you people are dense.


You're right. People forget that when the Nazis were occupying France and Poland, that anybody looking out their windows at the Nazis who were beating and killing people in the streets would, themselves, be dragged out of their houses and beaten and killed in the street.
 
2013-04-26 03:07:58 AM  

Thisbymaster: I think they all need to sent back to the range.  All those bullets shot and they didn't even kill him?


I think they went to the same school where the storm troopers went.
 
2013-04-26 03:13:24 AM  
They will say whatever keeps the ad revenue up.
 
2013-04-26 03:16:14 AM  

HBK: 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.

It's a really famous song. You've probably heard it before, performed by Willie Nelson.


I was well aware of the song long before some paranoid troll decided to cheapen its meaning in this thread, thanks.
 
2013-04-26 03:21:26 AM  

farkinglizardking: My only hope is that someone analyzes this situation and establishes apolice protocol for active terrorists suspects in a residential area.


We've had 224 years to figure that one out.
 
2013-04-26 03:29:58 AM  

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.


So much THIS.
 
2013-04-26 03:32:52 AM  

Freschel: Thisbymaster: I think they all need to sent back to the range.  All those bullets shot and they didn't even kill him?

I think they went to the same school where the storm troopers went.


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 03:38:51 AM  

remus: farkinglizardking: remus: Biological Ali: TopoGigo: The problem with your argument is the scope. Clearly we can agree that the police were certain the suspect was still in Massachusetts.

As I said before, this wasn't just the police guessing about where they reckoned the guy might be - this was a very specific area which was cordoned off after the suspect was known to have been there earlier. Given what was known about the suspect at the time, no court is going to find that the police did not have justification to take immediate action to apprehend the guy without having to get a warrant first.

This entire point is moot anyway, since it looks (thankfully) as though nobody objected to the searches at all - they did the smart thing and cooperated with the police, rather than having some retarded "Don't tread on me!" moment and obstructing the search for a suspected terrorist and murderer.

I remember watching the video live during the Tienanmen Square crackdown.  The Chinese tanks were rolling in to curb stomp the people trying to demonstrate for a little bit of freedom.  One old guy walked out and just stood in front of the line of tanks.  That was one "retarded don't tread on me!" guy?  He stood up to them and let them know that it was wrong to do what they were doing.  His simple act showed the entire world what was right and what was wrong.

If one guy had actually stood in his door and told those cops no.  And it was being filmed.  Maybe, just maybe people would have seen that you can't lose or give up your Liberty just because the cops think there might be a bad guy somewhere in a big huge area.  That doesn't give them the right to force you out of your house at gunpoint and search it against your will.  It just doesn't.  They have to have more reason than you are a few blocks from where we lost our suspect and we're really desperate.

You call him retarded.  Is it retarded to remind the world of what is right and what is wrong

So where is all this evidence (photos, videos, etc ...

http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html

Here's a news cast I posted earlier.

Up thread are a few youtube links.

The bottom line is they violated the 4th amendment rights of the citizens in their zeal to catch a suspect.  They only way exigent circumstances apply is when they have immediate knowledge or belief that the suspect is in that specific house.  There isn't a court in the land that will grant the cops a warrant to just search every house until they find their man.


No rights were violated.

Keep farking that chicken.
 
2013-04-26 03:47:13 AM  

TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: So where is all this evidence

remus: Here's a news cast I posted earlier.

Up thread are a few youtube links.

That is the link I was digging through the thread looking for. Like I said, it's not definitive evidence, but it convinced me that at least some number of people were treated like they lived in the old Soviet Bloc. Whether police behaved that way in a 2x2 block area, a 20x20 block area, or a city-wide area is immaterial. Some people's rights were violated.


Bullshiat.

And despite your own admission that there is no evidence of rights violations, you have also decided to keep farking the chicken.

Thanks for being a prime example of what's so frustrating about living in this coumtry.
 
2013-04-26 03:57:15 AM  
What I learned from this bomb plot is that it is still easy for bad people to attack populated places, despite everything, and that the blow is struck against liberty.

Save liberty.
 
2013-04-26 03:58:59 AM  

whidbey: TopoGigo: farkinglizardking: So where is all this evidence

remus: Here's a news cast I posted earlier.

Up thread are a few youtube links.

That is the link I was digging through the thread looking for. Like I said, it's not definitive evidence, but it convinced me that at least some number of people were treated like they lived in the old Soviet Bloc. Whether police behaved that way in a 2x2 block area, a 20x20 block area, or a city-wide area is immaterial. Some people's rights were violated.

Bullshiat.

And despite your own admission that there is no evidence of rights violations, you have also decided to keep farking the chicken.

Thanks for being a prime example of what's so frustrating about living in this coumtry.


Yes, please. More naked assertions. Feel free to read "not definitive evidence" and parse it as "no evidence". Can you make any rational argument that "no rights were violated" or "police had probable cause"? I'm not even asking for citations here, just any argument aside from bare-assed assertions. The only thing close to an argument or explanation I've heard from you on this is that the police obviously had probable cause because bombs are bad.
 
2013-04-26 04:00:08 AM  

sporkme: What I learned from this bomb plot is that it is still easy for bad people to attack populated places, despite everything, and that the blow is struck against liberty.

Save liberty.


Don't worry. We'll run out of liberty long before we run out of bad people.
 
2013-04-26 04:09:51 AM  

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 ??


Yep, it has literally never been mentioned.

Not here.

Nor here.

Not here either.

And it certainly isn't here.

Here? Nah.

And I really can't believe they missed it here.

Oh, you meant the foreign language media. Well, yeah, obviously them.

No aquí

Ikke her

Tidak di sini

这里绝对不是

Yeah, I'm just kidding with you. They didn't miss it.
 
2013-04-26 04:16:21 AM  

luxup: the cops and FBI should have let them go


If only there was even a sliver of middle ground between "anarchy" and "paramilitary law enforcement".
 
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 »






Report