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 04:19:06 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.


Just cut it out.
 
2013-04-26 04:20:27 AM  

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

It's almost as if this whole thing was a lot more complicated than some episode of CSI that wraps up in an hour.


That's why it's called an "investigation". Because they are investigating things. And often it takes many days, weeks, sometimes months to accurately determine what really happened.

It's not TV people. They're not going to have this wrapped up in time for Horatio to sum everything up in one witty pun right before the closing credits.
 
2013-04-26 04:25:02 AM  

TopoGigo: 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.


Honestly at this point you're the one having problems with reality here. Like whether your tinfoil hat should be in the shape of a chicky or a ducky.
 
2013-04-26 04:26:30 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.


If your source is "a friend of some of the cops on the scene" then he is no more reliable than any other Friend Of A Friend who likes to spread rumors and start shiat.

He knows nothing.
 
2013-04-26 04:29:59 AM  

remus: 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 none ...


The only problem I have with this comparison is that you are comparing a communist state that was oppressing it's people to Boston.

At 2:00am on June 4th 1989, People's Liberation Army tanks and 300,000 soldiers moved into Tiananmen Square in Beijing to crush a large pro-democracy demonstration that had been going on for seven weeks. The tanks rolled over people that got in their way and soldiers opened fire on groups of protesters.

Hundreds of students and supporters were killed. Hospitals were filled with casualties and P.L.A. troops in some cases prevented doctors from treating wounded demonstrators. The figure 2,000 dead is often cited but nobody but the Chinese authorities know how many people really died, partly because the bodies were carried off the night of the massacre and buried in secret graves. Reporters that tried to investigate what happened have been roughed up by soldiers with cattle prods.

That one guy was fed up and captured the frustration, despair, anger, everything everyone was feeling and did something that most Chinese are not comfortable with doing...stand up to authority.

Trying to put that on the same level as someone getting in the way of the police while they are engaged in a manhunt for a dangerous terrorist so they assert their personal freedom and right to privacy is not only a bit of a stretch, it's an insult to that man and what he did all those years ago in front of that tank.
 
2013-04-26 04:30:15 AM  

Biological Ali: They had cordoned off a specific area and had very good reason to believe he was in there


First, you need to define "specific area" more more distinctly for that to have any meaning. South Dakota is a "specific area" -- it has discrete, well-known borders -- but it's clearly not a reasonable area for this sort of search. At least part of the disagreement about whether or not this was reasonable has to do with what you consider a reasonable size for a warrantless search area.

Second, "had very good reason to believe" is not entirely clear. Certainly they had some reason to be believe he was in the search area, but again the disagreement here is related to whether or not people believe that reason was in fact "very good" more than whether police can sometimes search without a warrant.
 
2013-04-26 04:34:31 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.


And they are the ONLY people with standing to complain at this juncture. Are they? Then everyone else is just Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, with a heaping dose of self-righteous moralizing. "If I had been the cops I would have..."

Well, none of us were, nobody asked us, and its pretty much a moot point, now, isn't it? Maybe we should let it play out instead of turning it into another Martin/Zimmerman feeding frenzy.
 
2013-04-26 04:34:42 AM  

luxup: remus: 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 none ...

The only problem I have with this comparison is that you are comparing a communist state that was oppressing it's people to Boston.

At 2:00am on June 4th 1989, People's Liberation Army tanks and 300,000 soldiers moved into Tiananmen Square in Beijing to crush a large pro-democracy demonstration that had been going on for seven weeks. The tanks rolled over people that got in their way and soldiers opened fire on groups of protesters.

Hundreds of students and supporters were killed. Hospitals were filled with casualties and P.L.A. troops in some cases prevented doctors from treating wounded demonstrators. The figure 2,000 dead is often cited but nobody but the Chinese authorities know how many people really died, partly because the bodies were carried off the night of the massacre and buried in secret graves. Reporters that tried to investigate what happened have been roughed up by soldiers with cattle prods.

That one guy was fed up and captured the frustration, despair, anger, everything everyone was feeling and did something that most Chinese are not comfortable with doing...stand up to authority.

Trying to put that on the same level as someone getting in the way of the police while they are engaged in a manhunt for a dangerous terrorist so they assert their personal freedom and right to privacy is not only a bit of a stretch, it's an insult to that man and what he did all those years ago in front of that tank.


You mean somebody made a totally bullshiat disingenuous comparison between full blown Communism and stable democracy? On MY Fark? Is it more likely than I think??
 
2013-04-26 04:38:38 AM  

whidbey: Honestly at this point you're the one having problems with reality here. Like whether your tinfoil hat should be in the shape of a chicky or a ducky.


You know what? You're absolutely right. I concede defeat.

Cops never exceed their authority.
Our Fourth Amendment rights are as secure today as they were 200 years ago.
People always behave rationally even in the face of a terrorist bombing.
There is no footage of police escorting law-abiding citizens out of their houses at gunpoint.
There is no question that the police had the legal authority to confine law-abiding citizens to their homes.
There is no question that the police had the legal authority to search several, if not dozens of, homes without warrants or permission to do so.
You have presented a coherent argument that the police had probable cause to do these things.
I am a lunatic conspiracy theorist who probably believes this was a false flag operation by Mohawk O'Droneya and the UN to enforce Agenda 21 and urban planning gun control soda bans.
I shall now retreat to my panic room cum den of iniquity cum evil lair deep under the Apollo sound stage in the Nevada desert. I bid you fare well, and I'll tell JFK and Elvis you said hi.
 
2013-04-26 04:40:28 AM  

Gyrfalcon: 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.

And they are the ONLY people with standing to complain at this juncture. Are they? Then everyone else is just Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, with a heaping dose of self-righteous moralizing. "If I had been the cops I would have..."

Well, none of us were, nobody asked us, and its pretty much a moot point, now, isn't it? Maybe we should let it play out instead of turning it into another Martin/Zimmerman feeding frenzy.


Too late for that. There is clearly a very unhealthy zeal to unmask the next Communist Germany right here in this country. If this incident doesn't end up sticking to the wall like warm shiat, brace yourself for the next one.
 
2013-04-26 04:46:25 AM  

TopoGigo: whidbey: Honestly at this point you're the one having problems with reality here. Like whether your tinfoil hat should be in the shape of a chicky or a ducky.

You know what? You're absolutely right. I concede defeat.

Cops never exceed their authority.
Our Fourth Amendment rights are as secure today as they were 200 years ago.
People always behave rationally even in the face of a terrorist bombing.
There is no footage of police escorting law-abiding citizens out of their houses at gunpoint.
There is no question that the police had the legal authority to confine law-abiding citizens to their homes.
There is no question that the police had the legal authority to search several, if not dozens of, homes without warrants or permission to do so.
You have presented a coherent argument that the police had probable cause to do these things.
I am a lunatic conspiracy theorist who probably believes this was a false flag operation by Mohawk O'Droneya and the UN to enforce Agenda 21 and urban planning gun control soda bans.
I shall now retreat to my panic room cum den of iniquity cum evil lair deep under the Apollo sound stage in the Nevada desert. I bid you fare well, and I'll tell JFK and Elvis you said hi.


Good.

Now quit bothering people.
 
2013-04-26 04:48:26 AM  

Gyrfalcon: And they are the ONLY people with standing to complain at this juncture. Are they? Then everyone else is just Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, with a heaping dose of self-righteous moralizing. "If I had been the cops I would have..."


Because my rights weren't violated, I have no reason to complain? Bullsh*t. We all have a legitimate interest in determining how much authority we grant the police in this country. I can complain about the TSA even though I don't fly. I can complain about gun control even though I neither have a gun nor get shot at. I can complain about corporate fraud crashing the stock market even though I'm too poor to own stock. I can complain about union-busting even though I don't live in Wisconsin. I can complain about the War on Drugs even though all my vices are legal. I can complain about marriage equality even though I'm straight. To horribly misappropriate the words of the Bush administration, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.
 
2013-04-26 04:50:08 AM  
http://www.zompist.com/libertos.html

The libertarian philosopher always starts with property rights. Libertarianism arose in opposition to the New Deal, not to Prohibition. The libertarian voter is chiefly exercised over taxes, regulation, and social programs; the libertarian wing of the Republican party has, for forty years, gone along with the war on drugs, corporate welfare, establishment of dictatorships abroad, and an alliance with theocrats. Christian libertarians like Ron Paul want God in the public schools and are happy to have the government forbid abortion and gay marriage. I never saw the libertarians objecting to Bush Sr. mocking the protection of civil rights, or to Ken Starr's government inquiry into politicians' sex lives.

The libertarianism that has any effect in the world, then, has nothing to do with social liberty, and everything to do with removing all restrictions on business.

At the turn of the 20th century, business could do what it wanted-- and it did. The result was robber barons, monopolistic gouging, management thugs attacking union organizers, filth in our food, a punishing business cycle, slavery and racial oppression, starvation among the elderly, gunboat diplomacy in support of business interests.

Or take Russia in the decade after the fall of Communism, as advised by free-market absolutists like Jeffrey Sachs. Russian GDP declined 50% in five years. The elite grabbed the assets they could and shuffled them out of Russia so fast that IMF loans couldn't compensate. In 1994 alone, 600 businessmen, journalists, and politicians were murdered by gangsters. Russia lacked a working road system, a banking system, anti-monopoly regulation, effective law enforcement, or any sort of safety net for the elderly and the jobless. Inflation reached 2250% in 1992. Central government authority effectively disappeared in many regions.

Under liberalism, productivity increases benefited all classes-- poverty rates declined from over 30% to under 10% in the thirty years after World War II, while the economy more than quadrupled in size.  In the current libertarian climate, productivity gains only go to the already well-off.
 
2013-04-26 04:50:29 AM  

whidbey: Gyrfalcon: 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.

And they are the ONLY people with standing to complain at this juncture. Are they? Then everyone else is just Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, with a heaping dose of self-righteous moralizing. "If I had been the cops I would have..."

Well, none of us were, nobody asked us, and its pretty much a moot point, now, isn't it? Maybe we should let it play out instead of turning it into another Martin/Zimmerman feeding frenzy.

Too late for that. There is clearly a very unhealthy zeal to unmask the next Communist Germany right here in this country. If this incident doesn't end up sticking to the wall like warm shiat, brace yourself for the next one.


And somehow those of us who were sitting the deathwatch two Thursdays ago have no idea what really happened; and those of us who understand the law and police investigations are "fellating the cops" if we try to explain how it is there might be some honest disparity between initial reports and today's.

Makes you wonder who's really got an agenda sometimes...
 
2013-04-26 04:52:21 AM  

TopoGigo: Gyrfalcon: And they are the ONLY people with standing to complain at this juncture. Are they? Then everyone else is just Monday-morning quarterbacking at this point, with a heaping dose of self-righteous moralizing. "If I had been the cops I would have..."

Because my rights weren't violated, I have no reason to complain? Bullsh*t. We all have a legitimate interest in determining how much authority we grant the police in this country. I can complain about the TSA even though I don't fly. I can complain about gun control even though I neither have a gun nor get shot at. I can complain about corporate fraud crashing the stock market even though I'm too poor to own stock. I can complain about union-busting even though I don't live in Wisconsin. I can complain about the War on Drugs even though all my vices are legal. I can complain about marriage equality even though I'm straight. To horribly misappropriate the words of the Bush administration, we fight them there so we don't have to fight them here.


You can complain, but don't expect to be taken seriously
 
2013-04-26 05:20:38 AM  

Gyrfalcon: You can complain, but don't expect to be taken seriously


So it would seem. Just so I have it straight, are you saying that these things* never happened, that they are being exaggerated in the media, that they were obviously justified due to this extraordinary circumstance, that they would be justified in any manhunt for a violent criminal, or that the police were doing the best that they could at the time, and we shouldn't judge them so harshly? As a follow-up question, should the actions of the police be subject to judicial review so we know what the police can/cannot do in the future?

By "these things" I mean the police confining citizens to their homes for a disputed amount of time, the police ordering people out of their homes possibly at gunpoint, and the police conducting warrantless searches of homes and properties in an area of disputed size without clear and indisputable probable cause, at least as it seems to about half of the commenters in this thread. We seem to have forgotten the entire point of TFA as well; it asserts that asshole the younger was unarmed at the time of his capture amid a hail of gunfire.
 
2013-04-26 06:08:29 AM  
Get out of your house scum!
i.dailymail.co.uk
 
2013-04-26 06:22:26 AM  

jaytkay: It takes practice it it's your own holster.

Imagine the difficulty if you are a panicky kid who just killed a cop and you don't know much about holsters.




I know that if I couldnt get the gun out of the holster and I was in a hurry, I'd just take the damn belt.

but alas... I shall never get to put my powers to use as an arch villian.
 
2013-04-26 06:48:49 AM  

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


Just farking great. How long until this kid gets turned into some kind of left wing stoner hero who's been victimized by the evil government?
 
2013-04-26 07:23:00 AM  

jaytkay: remus: I'm sorry, but if you ask me to choose Safety or Liberty, I'll keep my Liberty and take my chances. They should have been getting search warrants.

You are very brave.

If you had been on the scene, this whole tragedy would have been averted.


I think the point he's trying to make is that despite the Boston PD, Mass State Police, FBI and National guard, it was a homeowner concerned for his property who ended up catching Dzhokhar.
 
2013-04-26 07:46:10 AM  

Gyrfalcon: And somehow those of us who were sitting the deathwatch two Thursdays ago have no idea what really happened; and those of us who understand the law and police investigations are "fellating the cops" if we try to explain how it is there might be some honest disparity between initial reports and today's.

Makes you wonder who's really got an agenda sometimes...


Meh, it has less to do with agendas, and far more to do with being horribly spoiled first worlders. Threads like these make me wish  Kar98 was around more often.
 
2013-04-26 07:51:03 AM  
I was listening to the Boston police scanner when they captured him.  I remember specifically hearing an officer come on the radio and tell everyone NOT to fire and that they were sending in a special team with flash bangs and dummy rounds only. It was clear that their intention was to take him alive if at all possible. I'm curious as to how no one else has picked up on this point.  This certainly explains why so many shots could have 'missed their targets.'
 
2013-04-26 08:05:28 AM  

doyner: since the rules of engagement were "don't fire unless fired upon," obviously he was armed.


Exactly!

media.salon.com
 
2013-04-26 08:11:14 AM  

wbb115psu: I was listening to the Boston police scanner when they captured him.  I remember specifically hearing an officer come on the radio and tell everyone NOT to fire and that they were sending in a special team with flash bangs and dummy rounds only. It was clear that their intention was to take him alive if at all possible. I'm curious as to how no one else has picked up on this point.  This certainly explains why so many shots could have 'missed their targets.'


That may be what was said on the radio, but there sure were a lot of holes in the boat for "dummy" ammo.
 
2013-04-26 08:49:45 AM  
I feel vindicated.

I've been saying this since that whole capture thing happened.

A guy comes home and notices blood on his boat. He checks the back and sees the guy, badly hurt.

So, the guy has been spotted but does not run. This means he was either unconscious or too hurt to run with one small possibility that he was simply sleeping.

Then we hear about a shoot out as well? I'm like, what was that all about? I can't imagine he was going down in a blaze of glory if he was severely hurt and holed up in a boat and hadn't run after being discovered.

THEN we get the police's alternate imaging showing that he was laying flat on his back and the flash grenade scene. He then gets out of the boat with no sign of retaliation fire?

I was actually upset about this.

What I thought is that the police got spooked and opened fire erroneously.

We now know that it couldn't have been 'return' fire.
 
2013-04-26 09:07:26 AM  
Jesus farking christ the manufactured outrage. Dude was hucking bombs one day prior. ran over and killed his own brother to escape. I would have shot at him too. cops were probably scared shiatless. theyre people too.
 
2013-04-26 09:29:17 AM  

TheOriginalEd: Jesus farking christ the manufactured outrage. Dude was hucking bombs one day prior. ran over and killed his own brother to escape. I would have shot at him too. cops were probably scared shiatless. theyre people too.


1)  Before this is over, we'll find out that he didn't run over his brother.  The cops made up that shiat also.  The older brother was probably dead or near death when Dzhokhar fled, passing on the right side of his brother on the ground.

2)  Cops are allegedly professionals.  They had a mandate to take this guy alive in order to gain information about cohorts, future plans, letting the justice system work, etc.  Instead, they tried to kill him and concocted the story about that final firefight as the excuse.  And the only reason it didn't work was because the media quickly descended onto the scene and thus jeopardized the plan to kill the younger brother.

Cops are liars.  Period.
 
2013-04-26 09:43:45 AM  

jso2897: Fog Of War


jso2897: trappedspirit: 2 words
Fog Of War

No one expects the Fog of War.


I didn't even see how you snuck a third word in there...
 
2013-04-26 09:59:46 AM  

IntertubeUser: TheOriginalEd: Jesus farking christ the manufactured outrage. Dude was hucking bombs one day prior. ran over and killed his own brother to escape. I would have shot at him too. cops were probably scared shiatless. theyre people too.

1)  Before this is over, we'll find out that he didn't run over his brother.  The cops made up that shiat also.  The older brother was probably dead or near death when Dzhokhar fled, passing on the right side of his brother on the ground.

2)  Cops are allegedly professionals.  They had a mandate to take this guy alive in order to gain information about cohorts, future plans, letting the justice system work, etc.  Instead, they tried to kill him and concocted the story about that final firefight as the excuse.  And the only reason it didn't work was because the media quickly descended onto the scene and thus jeopardized the plan to kill the younger brother.

Cops are liars.  Period.


Because your entire post wasn't one huge paranoid (and disrespectful) lie.
 
2013-04-26 10:01:09 AM  

Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Gyrfalcon: And somehow those of us who were sitting the deathwatch two Thursdays ago have no idea what really happened; and those of us who understand the law and police investigations are "fellating the cops" if we try to explain how it is there might be some honest disparity between initial reports and today's.

Makes you wonder who's really got an agenda sometimes...

Meh, it has less to do with agendas, and far more to do with being horribly spoiled first worlders. Threads like these make me wish  Kar98 was around more often.


The first world is a nice place because it's citizens care about things like this. The British system doesn't work in cultures tolerant of corruption.
 
2013-04-26 10:05:16 AM  

whidbey

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this.
It's my right to have untrained, panicked, inept government gunmen pointing assault weapons at my face.
 
2013-04-26 10:14:52 AM  

OnlyM3: whidbey

And the fact is NO ONE'S rights were violated. Going all tinfoil hat emotional doesn't change this. It's my right to have untrained, panicked, inept government gunmen pointing assault weapons at my face.


Good. So don't have that done to yourself. Not what we're talking about here.
 
2013-04-26 10:19:11 AM  

This text is now purple: Jim_Tressel's_O-Face: Gyrfalcon: And somehow those of us who were sitting the deathwatch two Thursdays ago have no idea what really happened; and those of us who understand the law and police investigations are "fellating the cops" if we try to explain how it is there might be some honest disparity between initial reports and today's.

Makes you wonder who's really got an agenda sometimes...

Meh, it has less to do with agendas, and far more to do with being horribly spoiled first worlders. Threads like these make me wish  Kar98 was around more often.

The first world is a nice place because it's citizens care about things like this. The British system doesn't work in cultures tolerant of corruption.


I don't equate the paranoid anti-law enforcdment rhetoric I've been suffering to read in this thread as "caring."

I see a lot of idiots jumping to ill-founded conclusions based on their rigid libertarian armchair interpretations of the US Constitution.
 
2013-04-26 10:44:57 AM  
whidbey:
Because your entire post wasn't one huge paranoid (and disrespectful) lie.

I smell bacon.

That and naivety.

It's a shame that the public doesn't demand that all law enforcement personnel wear a personal video and audio recording device similar to a dashcam.  There's a reason that police unions would fight such a proposal with everything they've got...and that reason isn't because police officers are honest, virtuous folks.
 
2013-04-26 11:02:33 AM  

remus: Amos Quito: doyner: since the rules of engagement were "don't fire unless fired upon," obviously he was armed.


No one wants to be on the receiving end of hot lead.

Shoot first.

Answer the uncomfortable questions later.

Cops have been shot during traffic stops before. No one wants be on the receiving end of hot lead. So, shoot everyone in the car when they pull it over? Officer safety! Amiright?


No! other people could get caught by ricochets!  Far better to shoot you when you go for your driver's license.  It allows the police to know that anyone driving at that point, is doing so without a license.
 
2013-04-26 11:02:55 AM  
Cops were wearing personnal video devices. We're picking up the first image from the scene.
chicago.seriouseats.com
 
2013-04-26 11:13:38 AM  

IntertubeUser: whidbey:
Because your entire post wasn't one huge paranoid (and disrespectful) lie.

I smell bacon.

That and naivety.

It's a shame that the public doesn't demand that all law enforcement personnel wear a personal video and audio recording device similar to a dashcam.  There's a reason that police unions would fight such a proposal with everything they've got...and that reason isn't because police officers are honest, virtuous folks.


It's a shame

No it isn't. And you owe a huge apology to the Boston Police who put their lives in danger trying to catch two dangerous men intent on committing mass murder.
 
2013-04-26 11:25:45 AM  

remus: The thing is, he's pointing his weapon directly at a person a few feet away who is obviously standing in an open window taking his picture. At that distance, the cop (who's got his make believe solider outfit on with all his awesome tacticool gear on) should very clearly have recognized that a) the face in the window wasn't the same as the picture of the suspect and b) he was just taking a picture and wasn't a threat. Thus, he should put down the rifle and continue sweeping for an actual threat.


OK, you're an idiot.

How can you say the person is "obviously standing in an open window" from just the picture alone? You can see the bottom of the window from the picture, so the photographer is "obiously" not in full view. It is likely he popped up just enough to get a picture. What the picture doesn't show is how long the cop was pointing his rifle at the photographer. The cop likely saw movement in the window and locked on just as the picture was taken. Once it was determined to be no threat (something that likely takes a few seconds, especially when all you can see is part of someone's head behind a black object with a lens that may or may be from a camera or rifle scope), the cop moved on and kept scanning the scene.

But don't let all this stop you from making knee-jerk reactions to a single picture.
 
2013-04-26 11:59:08 AM  

whidbey: 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.

Just cut it out.


causefitness.com
 
2013-04-26 12:04:01 PM  
And I'm certain no one shooting his fat mouth off in this thread was using it to suck LEOs cocks in the threads a week ago.
 
2013-04-26 12:13:17 PM  

whidbey: IntertubeUser: whidbey:
Because your entire post wasn't one huge paranoid (and disrespectful) lie.

I smell bacon.

That and naivety.

It's a shame that the public doesn't demand that all law enforcement personnel wear a personal video and audio recording device similar to a dashcam.  There's a reason that police unions would fight such a proposal with everything they've got...and that reason isn't because police officers are honest, virtuous folks.

It's a shame

No it isn't. And you owe a huge apology to the Boston Police who put their lives in danger trying to catch two dangerous men intent on committing mass murder.


They weren't trying to catch him.  They were trying to kill him, which isn't their gotdamned job.  Their job is to uphold the law, not to subvert it, and to keep their own bloodlust under control.  And the fact that you can't see the difference is what's wrong with America.

YOU are what's wrong with America.

And I don't live in Boston.  But where I live, I do thank the police.  It's called paying taxes.
 
2013-04-26 12:30:47 PM  

IntertubeUser: They weren't trying to catch him. They were trying to kill him


They caught him. They didn't kill him.

I am not kidding. You can look it up.
 
2013-04-26 12:37:28 PM  
What about the minutes of sustained shots fired you could hear on the police scanner -- before the cops started shooting back or they even knew who these guys were? Afterwards I clearly heard "3 handguns retrieved" from the street after the fire-fight. I know the situation was very confused, but the NYT/Wired stories doesn't jibe with what I heard happen. It's not like I take cops words for gold, but the media is also worthless when it comes to accuracy/trustworthiness.
 
2013-04-26 12:43:21 PM  

jaytkay: IntertubeUser: They weren't trying to catch him. They were trying to kill him

They caught him. They didn't kill him.

I am not kidding. You can look it up.


I suspect that the only reason they were unsuccessful in killing him was because the media was all over that neighborhood before they had a chance.
 
2013-04-26 12:45:58 PM  

IntertubeUser: whidbey: IntertubeUser: whidbey:
Because your entire post wasn't one huge paranoid (and disrespectful) lie.

I smell bacon.

That and naivety.

It's a shame that the public doesn't demand that all law enforcement personnel wear a personal video and audio recording device similar to a dashcam.  There's a reason that police unions would fight such a proposal with everything they've got...and that reason isn't because police officers are honest, virtuous folks.

It's a shame

No it isn't. And you owe a huge apology to the Boston Police who put their lives in danger trying to catch two dangerous men intent on committing mass murder.

They weren't trying to catch him.  They were trying to kill him, which isn't their gotdamned job.  Their job is to uphold the law, not to subvert it, and to keep their own bloodlust under control.  And the fact that you can't see the difference is what's wrong with America.

YOU are what's wrong with America.

And I don't live in Boston.  But where I live, I do thank the police.  It's called paying taxes.


Actually, no. I don't spread blatant lies about policework. Also, projecting your paranoid-driven hate doesn't make your statements any less reprehensible.

And you still owe the Boston Police a major apology. Either do so in your next post, or welcome to the ignore list.
 
2013-04-26 12:48:46 PM  

raatz01: What about the minutes of sustained shots fired you could hear on the police scanner -- before the cops started shooting back or they even knew who these guys were? Afterwards I clearly heard "3 handguns retrieved" from the street after the fire-fight. I know the situation was very confused, but the NYT/Wired stories doesn't jibe with what I heard happen. It's not like I take cops words for gold, but the media is also worthless when it comes to accuracy/trustworthiness.


Well, it doesn't have to be "the press is wrong" vs. "the police lied."  It's entirely possible for the police to say and report wrong things out of pure sincerity but in the midst of confusion.

Same with some of the firefight things (not only this one, either) - some cop will be interviewed and says "the suspect shot first" and later it turns out that was wrong, but it's possible he honestly thought the shot from his own side was the suspect shooting (and unfortunately maybe starting one of those "contagious fire" situations).
 
2013-04-26 12:55:24 PM  

IntertubeUser: I suspect that the only reason they were unsuccessful in killing him was because the media was all over that neighborhood before they had a chance.


You're condemning the police for your imaginary view of them.
 
2013-04-26 01:16:50 PM  
What ever happen to the Old guy getting gang bang by the bomb squad robots?
 
2013-04-26 02:10:12 PM  

luxup: /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.



This is from is an earlier post you made: 2013-04-26 12:20:36 AM

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


Then why were they making sure to use rubber bullets?

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

But no you see, they were using rubber bullets.


See friend, you started of with saying that you heard them mention rubber bullets on the scanner, and now you've morphed that into a full fledged CLAIM that they were in fact using rubber bullets.

And you would pretend to advise me to work on my observational skills?

LOL!
 
2013-04-26 02:12:54 PM  

Maus III: 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.


What's that suppose to mean?
 
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