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  
•       •       •

30965 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
 
2013-04-25 08:10:18 PM
Wow, how many times is this story gonna change? And people wonder why other people believe in conspiracy theories.
 
2013-04-25 08:18:04 PM

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.
 
2013-04-25 08:34:48 PM
since the rules of engagement were "don't fire unless fired upon," obviously he was armed.
 
2013-04-25 08:50:49 PM
At least the Boston PD didn't shoot up any asian paper delivery women, amirite?
 
2013-04-25 08:55:55 PM

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.


I'm just glad the media won't pull shiat out of their arse to sensationalize events
 
2013-04-25 09:04:14 PM

Walker: Wow, how many times is this story gonna change?



As many times as it takes?

Interesting story - should make an interesting thread.

"Three guns" shrinks to one gun...  allegations of #2's neck wound being "self-inflicted" evaporate...  Also, the only "exchange" of gunfire in the vicinity of the boat was between cops... - #2 shot in the neck while in the boat - unarmed?

And the Grand Tradition of Dorner Newspaper Deliverers Marksmanship lives on as "over 200 shots fired" in the "shootout" (mostly by the police, obviously) and few hit their targets.

Here's a link to the more detailed NY Times article referenced in the story. I would imagine there will be more to come in the morning and in the ensuing days.

Two bad men did bad, bad things, and while I'm happy that they won't be doing more, it appears that law enforcement is overdue for some serious introspection.
 
2013-04-25 09:07:20 PM

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.
 
2013-04-25 09:20:29 PM
so they didn't have a m4 carbine?
 
2013-04-25 09:22:40 PM
 
2013-04-25 09:27:28 PM
It's gonna be hard to find anyone, short of relatives, to be outraged about shooting at these guys, whether they had any guns or not.   There will likely be more people outraged at the fact little brother didn't die.
 
2013-04-25 09:27:41 PM
ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!
 
2013-04-25 09:29:50 PM

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


I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.
 
2013-04-25 09:30:34 PM
Drug money??

Better arrest the pharmaceutical industry executives and see why they hate 'Murica.
Oh wait thats a legal drug that is destroying America with terrorist old ladies going to Target. But she did not have a drivers license so no crime committed.

/This just in: Cops shoot the fark out of the neighborhood as they carry out an execution warrant. Cops even shot themselves since all cops look alike in the dark.
//At least Boston will only be paying out less than a $hundred grand for the naked in the street strip search and that dragging of the scared girl out of her home by the home invasion goons.
 
2013-04-25 09:30:34 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


Is Boston-ghazi a scandal yet?
 
2013-04-25 09:30:40 PM

echomike23: so they didn't have a m4 carbine?


I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags.  Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...
 
2013-04-25 09:30:40 PM

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?
 
2013-04-25 09:30:42 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


No details at all were known. There's an unidentified person prone in a shrinkwrapped boat.

Better fire everything we have into this unknown person.
 
2013-04-25 09:31:13 PM

sheep snorter: Drug money??

Better arrest the pharmaceutical industry executives and see why they hate 'Murica.
Oh wait thats a legal drug that is destroying America with terrorist old ladies going to Target. But she did not have a drivers license so no crime committed.


wat.
 
2013-04-25 09:31:19 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!



When in doubt, make shiat up.

Chances are that MOST people will remember the made up shiat, and pay little mind to the pesky "details" as they trickle out anyway.
 
2013-04-25 09:32:24 PM
remote control used for remote control cars. And according to CBS News, it was bought with drug money.

See! See! Mari-huana kills! Just say no, children!
 
2013-04-25 09:32:27 PM
So the cops went ape shiat crazy and shot hundreds of bullets at an unarmed guy.... do tell

The only thing it sounds well done about the response to this attack was the medical treatment of the victims.

Other than that, it sounds like the cops/fbi did their usual lousy job with the infinite resources they posses.

Cut the FBI budget in half.  Stop all the anything done without warrants.  I would rather take the chance of being a victim in one of these attacks than have these trigger happy bungling idiots on my side
 
2013-04-25 09:32:29 PM

tankjr: jaytkay: ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!

No details at all were known. There's an unidentified person prone in a shrinkwrapped boat.

Better fire everything we have into this unknown person.


Wat.
 
2013-04-25 09:32:51 PM
They had one gun?

Odds are the transit cop who was badly wounded in Watertown took some friendly fire.
 
2013-04-25 09:34:38 PM

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?


Now you're thinking like a Badge Man!
 
2013-04-25 09:34:40 PM
I for one am glad that this will never happen again.
 
2013-04-25 09:34:41 PM

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


The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.
 
2013-04-25 09:34:47 PM

o5iiawah: echomike23: so they didn't have a m4 carbine?

I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags.  Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...


Actually they had multiple 900-round ammo belts, and the bullets were injected with depleted uraniaum and then sprayed with teflon so they would penetrate SWAT vests. And they soaked them in rat poison so they wounds wouldn't coagulate.

/and their unexploded bombs were filled with ebola virus
 
2013-04-25 09:35:37 PM
All I know is if I read the word "pothead" in an article I immediately cease caring.

And as a pothead, offended.  I demand retribution.
 
WGJ
2013-04-25 09:36:14 PM
3.bp.blogspot.com
Basically what it boiled down to.
 
2013-04-25 09:36:22 PM

cameroncrazy1984: Is Boston-ghazi a scandal yet?


Here's an actual headline: "Republicans: Boston bombings reveal intel system still broken "

/ Not gonna link to that nonsense
 
2013-04-25 09:36:25 PM

ohknaks: This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.

 
2013-04-25 09:37:17 PM
I think they all need to sent back to the range.  All those bullets shot and they didn't even kill him?
 
2013-04-25 09:37:21 PM

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?


THAT, well the variation of that, is the problem.  They exaggerate the risks to themselves, exaggerate the capabilities of their opponent, then treat everyone they encounter as an opponent while placing their safety above all else. This is a recipe for disaster and serious injury and death to anyone unlucky enough to be in range of them.
 
2013-04-25 09:38:37 PM

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


If I've learned anything from CSI, it's that they have the most advanced computers in the world, capable of enhancing just about anything.
 
2013-04-25 09:39:26 PM

ohknaks: Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week


I don't even know where to start on all the things that are wrong with what you wrote.
 
2013-04-25 09:39:26 PM
How did they know it was him in the boat and not random homeless guy? Did they look in the boat first and then just open fire?
 
2013-04-25 09:40:19 PM

Therion: ohknaks: This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.


This.

I'd be happy if they just accepted that everyone in the area still has civil rights and can't be ordered out of their house so it can be searched without a warrant, nor ordered to stay indoors.
 
2013-04-25 09:41:10 PM

poot_rootbeer: ohknaks: Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week

I don't even know where to start on all the things that are wrong with what you wrote.


OK, shutting down big parts of a major city and surrounding cities for 36 or so hours and searching house without warrants.

Is that better?
 
2013-04-25 09:41:34 PM

ohknaks: I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.


Shutting down a city for a week?   Uh, didn't they "shut things down" just on Friday?   And it's not like they ordered everyone to stay inside, they recommended people to stay inside.

I'm not a badge defender, but c'mon, at least get your facts straight.   Especially in a thread from a story about getting facts wrong.
 
2013-04-25 09:41:40 PM
Among other revelations, police are now saying that they don't believe Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, the younger of the two brothers suspected of carrying out the attack, was armed when they opened fire on him Friday evening.

Liberal scumbags lying off their a**es about gun ownership to make a point, regardless of fact? Yep. Pieces of f****** sh*t.
 
2013-04-25 09:41:41 PM
To paraphrase Will Munny, "Well, if he was gonna detonate a bomb that killed an eight year old boy and two women, and maimed scores of innocent bystanders, he shoulda armed himself."

/but Little Dzokhar was gonna build a house!
 
2013-04-25 09:42:04 PM
Thisbymaster:  All those bullets shot and they didn't even kill him?

He tried to commit suicide with one of the bullets.
 
2013-04-25 09:42:35 PM

jaytkay: They had one gun?

Odds are the transit cop who was badly wounded in Watertown took some friendly fire.



I was pondering this also.

Would they dare admit it?


Something that this AND the Dorner incident have in common is TARGETED COPS... the murder of the university cop was a GAME CHANGER for LEO's.

And if these incidents have taught us anything, it is that when the pressure is on, cops can be counted on to shiat their britches and SHOOT WILDLY @ anything and EVERYTHING.


/Duck and cover
 
2013-04-25 09:42:48 PM

Bonanza Jellybean: o5iiawah: echomike23: so they didn't have a m4 carbine?

I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags.  Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...

Actually they had multiple 900-round ammo belts, and the bullets were injected with depleted uraniaum and then sprayed with teflon so they would penetrate SWAT vests. And they soaked them in rat poison so they wounds wouldn't coagulate.

/and their unexploded bombs were filled with ebola virus


buffetoblog.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-04-25 09:42:48 PM
Am I just really high or did they suggest that pot had something to do with the bombing?

Because no.
 
2013-04-25 09:42:51 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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


Kind of related, wonder how many people remember Richard Jewell as the Olympics bomber.
 
2013-04-25 09:43:41 PM
After capturing the younger brother, my opinion of law enforcement improved a bit.  And now...this.  Cops are generally lying sacks of shiat who are marginally better than the scum they're after, but they are still generally lying sacks of shiat.

Never trust cops to tell the truth.  Ever.
 
2013-04-25 09:45:14 PM
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 ??
 
2013-04-25 09:46:06 PM
Shoot first, axe questions later.

When in doubt, keep firing.
 
2013-04-25 09:46:27 PM
BREAKING
NY POST REPORTS THEY HAD sqrt(-1) GUNS, THEORIZE THEY WERE RADICALS, NOT € REALS, MEMBERS OF IMAGINARY SEcT

iGuns to be confiscated, bricked


/nothing can be derived
 
2013-04-25 09:46:27 PM

pedrop357: The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.


The only cop who is likely pissed (or at least trying to) is the transit cop to took a bullet to the jimmy.

The homeowners will likely just take pictures and chalk it up to the heat of the moment.
 
2013-04-25 09:46:59 PM

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

Never trust cops to tell the truth.  Ever.



Treat them with respect due vampires.

Never invite them into your home.
Do not engage them in conversation.
Avoid the places they frequent.
 
2013-04-25 09:47:41 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


A) Why does it matter what the exact details are?
B) Doesn't stop them from bullshiatting anyway
 
2013-04-25 09:47:47 PM

LessO2: ohknaks: I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.

Shutting down a city for a week?   Uh, didn't they "shut things down" just on Friday?   And it's not like they ordered everyone to stay inside, they recommended people to stay inside.

I'm not a badge defender, but c'mon, at least get your facts straight.   Especially in a thread from a story about getting facts wrong.


But...there's no fun to be had in being factual.
 
2013-04-25 09:47:53 PM

LessO2: pedrop357: The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.

The only cop who is likely pissed (or at least trying to) is the transit cop to took a bullet to the jimmy.

The homeowners will likely just take pictures and chalk it up to the heat of the moment.


Umm.  There were two other cops shot at.  One FBI agent and one state trooper.  They were shot at by stupid cops operating on more bad information.  I don't care what happened to them, but they might.
 
2013-04-25 09:48:25 PM

pedrop357: I'd be happy if they just accepted that everyone in the area still has civil rights and can't be ordered out of their house so it can be searched without a warrant, nor ordered to stay indoors.


The real heroes are the libertarians who hampered the search for a bomber and cop-killer.

Never, ever comply with any request for help. Interacting with other people makes you weak.

/ Plus they might eat your Cheetos
 
2013-04-25 09:49:10 PM

carrion_luggage: To paraphrase Will Munny, "Well, if he was gonna detonate a bomb that killed an eight year old boy and two women, and maimed scores of innocent bystanders, he shoulda armed himself."

/but Little Dzokhar was gonna build a house!


Damn skippy.
 
2013-04-25 09:49:37 PM

jaytkay: cameroncrazy1984: Is Boston-ghazi a scandal yet?

Here's an actual headline: "Republicans: Boston bombings reveal intel system still broken "

/ Not gonna link to that nonsense


Last I heard they were going after the immigration system and the INS for not being clairvoyant and predicting a decade in advance that two kids would become terrorists after moving here.
 
2013-04-25 09:49:41 PM

megarian: Am I just really high or did they suggest that pot had something to do with the bombing?

Because no.


You're really high.  But it also called him a pothead.
 
2013-04-25 09:50:04 PM
First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.

With all these articles lately it appears Alex Jones has reached stage three.
 
2013-04-25 09:50:41 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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


I was just talking about that the other day and couldn't for the life of me remember the actual bombers name. Yay media!
 
2013-04-25 09:53:50 PM

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

Never trust cops to tell the truth.  Ever.


Treat them with respect due vampires.

Never invite them into your home.
Do not engage them in conversation.
Avoid the places they frequent.



And hang LOTS of garlic.


/Unless they're Italian vampires
 
2013-04-25 09:55:04 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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


Olympic Bomber?
Seems like they'll make a sport out of anything these days.

You think the kids were just training athletes?

/Smells like fire outside the bread basket
 
2013-04-25 09:55:43 PM
I have not read any comments or the article that is linked. I read and saw some things that trouble me though. The guy was unarmed. He appeared to be able to get out of the boat without trouble. Suddenly, he is in life threatening condition in the hospital and can't talk. Police are people. They can overreact. They re, however, paid to NOT overreact. to uphold the law. Law that requires due process. It seems to me, he was not.He was a shoot first ask questions later suspect........ Suspect.   Not convicted felon and escapee. A possible suspect.

He was fine getting in and out of the boat. He had no weapons. He was nearly dead, and most likely expected to be, when they got him in custody. If he did what he is accused of, he is a giant asshole, if he didn't he is a poor soul. No matter what, the police response was ridiculous and unAmerican. It was very totalitarian. House clearing and all.

Innocent unless proven guilty. Unless. Not until..
 
2013-04-25 09:56:23 PM

CruJones: megarian: Am I just really high or did they suggest that pot had something to do with the bombing?

Because no.

You're really high.  But it also called him a pothead.


Well, that's a relief.

Kind of...
 
2013-04-25 09:56:33 PM
I think cops can shoot anyone whether they have a gun or not.   I'm not sure of the rules but LAPD shot a pickup truck full of holes.   40 shots I believe, at two unarmed newspaper women.    It wasn't the color, make or model they were looking for but still.     You can shoot if you think they could possibly have 'weapon', like a newspaper.

A day later they rammed another pickup off the road, again not matching at all the truck in question.   I think they shot a few times and the truck burned.

So this article is kind all over the map in its story line.   But in the end, I think we see that these Boston cops are sluffs.   LA laughs at you.
 
2013-04-25 09:58:41 PM
SUPPRESSING FIRE!
 
2013-04-25 10:01:35 PM
I blame TV. No, really. All that sanitized violence, I'm sure these two thought a few people would fly through the air a few feet, then get up and dust themselves off and walk away. They were just as surprised as the rest of us when the arms and legs started flying. That's when they realized when things might have gotten a bit out of hand. Killing the security officer for his gun and throwing pipe bombs out the window at their outsiders? More Tom and Jerry antics.

Yep, TV is definitely to blame.
 
2013-04-25 10:02:25 PM
ftfa: Law enforcement believes that the Tsarnaev brothers tried and failed to steal Collier's gun after shooting him from behind, the first of several things that went wrong for the two young suspected terrorists that night.

So, they failed to 'steal' a gun from a dead man? Wow. That's a lot of fail right there.
 
2013-04-25 10:03:51 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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


It was Jack Ruby.
 
2013-04-25 10:05:13 PM
He ran over his brother while he was still alive. Shot, but alive...

He can rot in jail for the rest of his life haunted by this fact.
 
2013-04-25 10:06:43 PM
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?
 
2013-04-25 10:06:50 PM

megarian: Am I just really high or did they suggest that pot had something to do with the bombing?

Because no.


Depends on how you look at it.  If you read at a third grade level or above, you might read it completely differently than a 6 year old child.
 
2013-04-25 10:07:26 PM

pedrop357: LessO2: pedrop357: The FBI agent and state police officer that were fired on by other cops might be a little angry, as should all the people whose houses were riddled with bullets by police who were operating on bad information and shoot like shiat.

The only cop who is likely pissed (or at least trying to) is the transit cop to took a bullet to the jimmy.

The homeowners will likely just take pictures and chalk it up to the heat of the moment.

Umm.  There were two other cops shot at.  One FBI agent and one state trooper.  They were shot at by stupid cops operating on more bad information.  I don't care what happened to them, but they might.


Fact of the matter is, they robbed a 7-11 at gunpoint and believed they had killed the MIT cop.  Does it matter how many guns the brothers had?  One, two, three....20?   Does it make a difference in the heat of the moment?

The FBI guy and the Trooper weren't hit.  They likely chalked it up to the heat of the moment.

Like I mentioned before, and that you conveniently ignored, there was a transit cop that was also shot.
 
2013-04-25 10:07:38 PM
Good god, it's like half of Fark is 90% haters, half is 90% retards and the other half is 90% psychos.
 
2013-04-25 10:07:58 PM
Talking fact based only...NO conspiracy theories...there's a bunch I don't like about the whole thing. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. My questions started with the press conference the night of the capture. The very carefully chosen language got my attention, plus the fact that the whole bombing was really a huge failure compared to what they had reportedly planned. Then this kid ran like a scared jackrabbit, running his brother over in the process. They had virtually no set plan for after the bombing. I just don't get it. I guess acts of violence on this scale really shouldn't make sense, but this whole thing smacks of confusion, even on the part of law enforcement...except for the press conference.
 
2013-04-25 10:09:25 PM
I'm still convinced Dzhokhar thought he was just playing a marble prank a la Animal House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=MwlRiq-bIms #t =2s

I mean, the ball bearings were too small to kill people efficiently...
 
2013-04-25 10:09:27 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.


It was Eric Rudolph.

Jack Ruby, Ruby for short, is the guy they made that football movie about.
 
2013-04-25 10:09:55 PM
What happened to the story that "it was a remarkable coincidence that the brothers got gas at a 7-11 that happened to be undergoing a robbery at the time"? Or the car with MA plates that was being look for in CT? I heard both of those, repeatedly, and from multiple local radio stations.
 
2013-04-25 10:10:48 PM

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


Which group do you fall into, MrHappyRotter?
 
2013-04-25 10:10:57 PM

Tourney3p0: megarian: Am I just really high or did they suggest that pot had something to do with the bombing?

Because no.

Depends on how you look at it.  If you read at a third grade level or above, you might read it completely differently than a 6 year old child.


I'll split the difference and go for 5th grade level.

/wasn't good at math, either
 
2013-04-25 10:11:43 PM

Evil High Priest: ftfa: Law enforcement believes that the Tsarnaev brothers tried and failed to steal Collier's gun after shooting him from behind, the first of several things that went wrong for the two young suspected terrorists that night.

So, they failed to 'steal' a gun from a dead man? Wow. That's a lot of fail right there.


Police holsters are designed to make it hard for someone other than the person wearing it to remove the gun. You have to take the gun out at the proper angle or something. I bet the gun got stuck and they panicked and ran.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:02 PM

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


Ever hear the term "the fog of war"? Now you know first-hand what it means.
 
2013-04-25 10:13:54 PM

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


Haters, retards and psychos, oh my!
 
2013-04-25 10:14:33 PM
FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.
 
2013-04-25 10:14:46 PM

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

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


Ever play telephone?
 
2013-04-25 10:17:09 PM

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


Soldiers can call in artillery strikes and air support.

/just saying
 
2013-04-25 10:18:04 PM

Amos Quito: allegations of #2's neck wound being "self-inflicted" evaporate...  Also, the only "exchange" of gunfire in the vicinity of the boat was between cops... - #2 shot in the neck while in the boat - unarmed?


I definitely am curious about the neck wound. Supposedly it was from up close, but maybe that was wrong too?
 
2013-04-25 10:18:16 PM

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..."
 
2013-04-25 10:18:35 PM

chumboobler: I have not read any comments or the article that is linked. I read and saw some things that trouble me though. The guy was unarmed. He appeared to be able to get out of the boat without trouble. Suddenly, he is in life threatening condition in the hospital and can't talk. Police are people. They can overreact. They re, however, paid to NOT overreact. to uphold the law. Law that requires due process. It seems to me, he was not.He was a shoot first ask questions later suspect........ Suspect.   Not convicted felon and escapee. A possible suspect.

He was fine getting in and out of the boat. He had no weapons. He was nearly dead, and most likely expected to be, when they got him in custody. If he did what he is accused of, he is a giant asshole, if he didn't he is a poor soul. No matter what, the police response was ridiculous and unAmerican. It was very totalitarian. House clearing and all.

Innocent unless proven guilty. Unless. Not until..


This.

To me they looked like a bunch of boys out playing with their toys. All of that homeland security funded military equipment on parade, houses searched, civilians pushed around and confined to their homes, bus loads of tactical-vested shiat-kickers all around, vigorously exercising authority and wiping their brows with the Constitution-- they must have been feeling pretty jacked up by the time the smoker noticed a Chechen in his boat.

"To hell with it, boys, we've been trampling liberties all day, what's one more?" Or, more likely, "There he is, KILLKILLKILL... oops"
 
2013-04-25 10:18:43 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

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


I thought that was Rudy...Daniel "Rudy" Ruettiger
 
2013-04-25 10:19:59 PM

Evil High Priest: So, they failed to 'steal' a gun from a dead man? Wow. That's a lot of fail right there.


big pig peaches: Police holsters are designed to make it hard for someone other than the person wearing it to remove the gun.


Having to release a couple of retention points is common.

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.
 
2013-04-25 10:20:41 PM

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


And coming up in the third half of the show is the answer to last week's puzzler.
 
2013-04-25 10:20:42 PM

His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.


Why not take away pressure cookers?  How about ban fireworks?  High or not, all the pot in the world when sparked up will not go boom.  I'm also absolutely certain it had nothing to do with this kid being a terrorist, his friends said he stopped smoking a while ago.

Besides, with that mom pot probably kept him from blowing something up sooner.
 
2013-04-25 10:21:08 PM

carrion_luggage: I blame TV. No, really. All that sanitized violence, I'm sure these two thought a few people would fly through the air a few feet, then get up and dust themselves off and walk away. They were just as surprised as the rest of us when the arms and legs started flying. That's when they realized when things might have gotten a bit out of hand. Killing the security officer for his gun and throwing pipe bombs out the window at their outsiders? More Tom and Jerry antics.

Yep, TV is definitely to blame.


I think that TV might be the only reason he's still alive.  The cops made up a story about the shootout while Tsarnaev was in the boat to justify killing him and avoiding a trial.  The presence of media nearby might've thwarted that and forced the police into taking him alive.
 
2013-04-25 10:21:54 PM
i.huffpost.com
So, how much do you want to bet that this was a cop bullet that almost killed a resident?

Makes sense too - his house was adjacent to where the bombers were, so he was more in the line of fire from the cops than he was from them.
 
2013-04-25 10:22:11 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

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

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


Ha! Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald...yup...yay media!
 
2013-04-25 10:22:29 PM

sporkme: civilians pushed around and confined to their homes,


Did this happen in "reality", or just in your melon? Follow-up question: How many black helicopters do you see, right now?
 
2013-04-25 10:22:34 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

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

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


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KTwnwbG9YLE
 
2013-04-25 10:22:43 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

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

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


No, that was Daniel "Day" Lewis.
 
2013-04-25 10:24:52 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

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

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

No, that was Daniel "Day" Lewis.


Yeah, he played a kicker with a killer left foot.
 
2013-04-25 10:26:59 PM

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


a couple more iterations and their crazee biaaatch of a mom may be the only one telling the truth all this time.  yikes!
 
2013-04-25 10:28:04 PM
The cops should have just waited a week then they would have known a lot more.
 
2013-04-25 10:28:07 PM

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

I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week

  about 12 hours...

At least try and make a half-assed attempt at credibility.


The night this happened, I remember the local media said that police may have been using non-lethal ammunition and flash-bang grenades which could account for the alleged "explosions" that were reported, and the fact that the suspect is still alive and not filled with 300 holes. However, I have not heard any updates on that, so it may have been incorrect.
 
2013-04-25 10:28:34 PM

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

And coming up in the third half of the show is the answer to last week's puzzler.


and don't drive like my brother?
 
2013-04-25 10:28:35 PM
The police will be instructed to protect public assets over life, and figure out why after the fact, because -- lets face it -- no one ever got fired (without pay) for offing a couple of low-lifes, but make something politically inconvienent for those with power enough to call that cop's boss? you're toast.

that's reality. Only pervasive sousveilance can possibly change this. Go copwatch!
 
2013-04-25 10:29:07 PM

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
 
2013-04-25 10:33:53 PM
  Jeez FARK you've put me in some weird positions lately. I hate cops with a passion, but this was actually pretty tame compared to some over-reactions in the past. There were no civilians killed by police or the suspects. It was over within 24 hours. They supposedly have a confession and enough evidence so there is no doubt they got the right guys. The suspects committed a terrorist act, killed a cop, and were actively tossing explosives at law enforcement. I won't use the word 'restraint', but it could have been far worse. As for 'shutting down' the city, I can understand requesting that folks stay inside. The proof of the wisdom of this decision is the fact that no one got shot taking out the trash or walking their dog. I think the house to house searches set a scary precedent that we need to be watchful of, but vigilance is the duty of the civilian. I suspect that decision came from the feds and not the locals. All in all I'd say the handling of this shows an improvement from other cop overkill situations in the past.
Anyway, yeah, I feel really weird now.
 
2013-04-25 10:35:36 PM
Ok, before people start losing their minds over "friendly fire" and what have you, can we just remember that there were two separate incidents in Watertown. The cop that was injured was injured during the first incident (Overnight Thursday), where the brothers were both alive and shooting and throwing explosives. The incident that this article is talking about is the 2nd incident which happened Friday night.
 
2013-04-25 10:35:59 PM
img195.imageshack.us

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
 
2013-04-25 10:38:20 PM

jaytkay: Evil High Priest: So, they failed to 'steal' a gun from a dead man? Wow. That's a lot of fail right there.

big pig peaches: Police holsters are designed to make it hard for someone other than the person wearing it to remove the gun.

Having to release a couple of retention points is common.

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.



WAT???

Don't they teach this shiat in Chechnyan Jihad Terrorist Training Camp?


/Waste of money, if you ask me
 
2013-04-25 10:38:50 PM

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner


This.  When cops are after a suspected cop killer the game has changed.  If the cops suspect you have killed a cop, chances are they are looking to take you out permanently rather than take you in.
 
2013-04-25 10:39:43 PM

redsquid: Jeez FARK you've put me in some weird positions lately. I hate cops with a passion, but this was actually pretty tame compared to some over-reactions in the past. There were no civilians killed by police or the suspects. It was over within 24 hours. They supposedly have a confession and enough evidence so there is no doubt they got the right guys. The suspects committed a terrorist act, killed a cop, and were actively tossing explosives at law enforcement. I won't use the word 'restraint', but it could have been far worse. As for 'shutting down' the city, I can understand requesting that folks stay inside. The proof of the wisdom of this decision is the fact that no one got shot taking out the trash or walking their dog. I think the house to house searches set a scary precedent that we need to be watchful of, but vigilance is the duty of the civilian. I suspect that decision came from the feds and not the locals. All in all I'd say the handling of this shows an improvement from other cop overkill situations in the past.
Anyway, yeah, I feel really weird now.


There have already been a bunch of news stories about how law enforcement learned from the Boston manhunt. Scary...
 
2013-04-25 10:40:37 PM
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?
 
2013-04-25 10:42:27 PM

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


You sound real well-informed.

Please give us all the details.

The police were threatening Watertown residents with death the day after the shootout?
 
2013-04-25 10:43:09 PM
A furious gunfight ensued on Laurel Street in Watertown, where more than 200 rounds were fired, officials said. A transit police officer, Richard H. Donohue, was shot in his right leg and critically wounded during the gunfight.


uh...so what is the headline supposed to mean, subby? That there was no crazy shootout in Watertown?
 
2013-04-25 10:46:27 PM

Christian Bale: A furious gunfight ensued on Laurel Street in Watertown, where more than 200 rounds were fired, officials said. A transit police officer, Richard H. Donohue, was shot in his right leg and critically wounded during the gunfight.


uh...so what is the headline supposed to mean, subby? That there was no crazy shootout in Watertown?


It looks like it may be turning out to be more of a shoot at.
 
2013-04-25 10:46:48 PM
v

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

And coming up in the third half of the show is the answer to last week's puzzler.

and don't drive like my brother?


Hee hee hee
 
2013-04-25 10:51:07 PM

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

I'm pretty outraged about the police response to this whole situation. Shutting down a major US city for nearly a week and shooting at unarmed suspects? This isn't Judge Dredd. The police don't get to dole out death to those they think that deserve it. We have courts for a reason in this country.


My sentiments exactly. What's worse, in my opinion, is that the only people who will publicly denounce such acts by the police are certifiable nutjobs. It's almost as if the Alex Jones of the world are plants designed to make us dismiss any legitimate criticism of the status quo. All logic tells me that isn't the case, but damned if my conspiracy meter doesn't wobble a bit anyway.
 
2013-04-25 10:51:33 PM

big pig peaches: Evil High Priest: ftfa: Law enforcement believes that the Tsarnaev brothers tried and failed to steal Collier's gun after shooting him from behind, the first of several things that went wrong for the two young suspected terrorists that night.

So, they failed to 'steal' a gun from a dead man? Wow. That's a lot of fail right there.

Police holsters are designed to make it hard for someone other than the person wearing it to remove the gun. You have to take the gun out at the proper angle or something. I bet the gun got stuck and they panicked and ran.


It's called a Level III retention holster.  Anybody can purchase one, but Cops and Military are the primary people who get them.  Yes, there is a trick to drawing the gun; it's very hard for another person to draw it, but quite easy for the owner to draw.
 
2013-04-25 10:54:03 PM

Theaetetus: [i.huffpost.com image 450x600]
So, how much do you want to bet that this was a cop bullet that almost killed a resident?

Makes sense too - his house was adjacent to where the bombers were, so he was more in the line of fire from the cops than he was from them.


What is that sport in the Colorado vs Oregon poster/calendar thing?
Competitive synchronized jujitsu?
 
2013-04-25 10:55:06 PM

o5iiawah: echomike23: so they didn't have a m4 carbine?

I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags.  Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...


"And the thing on the stock that goes up."
 
2013-04-25 10:55:15 PM
What sport is that?

i.huffpost.com
 
2013-04-25 10:56:27 PM

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


So sick of this part of this shiat...  "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

WTF was law enforcement supposed to do? Tip toe down the center of the street calling "olly olly oxen free, come out come out wherever you are" ???

If they had done anything less, someone else would give them shiat for not doing enough.
 
2013-04-25 10:58:48 PM

tuna fingers: What sport is that?

[i.huffpost.com image 450x600]


football before real helmets
 
2013-04-25 11:00:32 PM

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


I'm outraged. The police are there to uphold the law, I understand that emotions were running high but officers are supposed to be professionals not a lynch mob.
 
2013-04-25 11:01:34 PM

redsquid: Jeez FARK you've put me in some weird positions lately. I hate cops with a passion, but this was actually pretty tame compared to some over-reactions in the past. There were no civilians killed by police or the suspects. It was over within 24 hours. They supposedly have a confession and enough evidence so there is no doubt they got the right guys. The suspects committed a terrorist act, killed a cop, and were actively tossing explosives at law enforcement. I won't use the word 'restraint', but it could have been far worse. As for 'shutting down' the city, I can understand requesting that folks stay inside. The proof of the wisdom of this decision is the fact that no one got shot taking out the trash or walking their dog. I think the house to house searches set a scary precedent that we need to be watchful of, but vigilance is the duty of the civilian. I suspect that decision came from the feds and not the locals. All in all I'd say the handling of this shows an improvement from other cop overkill situations in the past.
Anyway, yeah, I feel really weird now.


It was dumb luck that they didn't shoot anyone else.  They got really lucky they didn't shoot that guy sitting in that chair.

Yes the stay at home shiat was a good move.  I don't think anyone would have been better off on the street with the army going down the street with safeties off.

My point is that they probably could have done the same job
A) with a much smaller force...and not the fricking national guard and swarms of swat team guys with heavy ordinance and itchy trigger fingers.
B) The suspects in this case were easy to spot.  The second suspect was missed by the inch by inch search and found by some boat crazy guy who noticed that a trail of blood was all over his backyard and precious boat.  With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed.  And not turned the entire block into a bullet fiesta, where no one really knows why anyone is shooting anymore.
 
2013-04-25 11:05:02 PM
2 words
Fog Of War
 
2013-04-25 11:07:50 PM

tuna fingers: What sport is that?

[i.huffpost.com image 450x600]


Hmmm... looks like American college football, to me. Judging by the helmet and jersey designs, it appears to represent a game sometime in the early to mid-1950's.

i1182.photobucket.com

What were we talking about again?
 
2013-04-25 11:07:57 PM

weasil: 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

So sick of this part of this shiat...  "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

WTF was law enforcement supposed to do? Tip toe down the center of the street calling "olly olly oxen free, come out come out wherever you are" ???

If they had done anything less, someone else would give them shiat for not doing enough.


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.

Does that mean an increased danger to the police?  Yes.  But they are supposed to put that pesky Constitution before their lives.  That means they don't get to go all Martial Law all over the citizens just because a SUSPECT MIGHT be nearby.  They should be following the rule of law and not recklessly pointing loaded rifles are obviously innocent civilians.

Here's some news crew footage of it:  http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html


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.  That, however, would have actually required them to articulate probable cause for each individual house, which they obviously didn't have.  Judges don't normally give the cops carte blanche to go on fishing expeditions.  So, they just went Judge Dredd and did what they liked.
 
2013-04-25 11:11:54 PM
So wait, we're talking about the guys that have several explosives and DID shoot a cop (MIT), right?  So we're upset he didn't have enough guns now or what?  Weren't people worried that a chased man known to have explosives would do when he was cornered?  Sure, send one guy with a vest.
 
2013-04-25 11:13:02 PM

Bonanza Jellybean: o5iiawah: echomike23: so they didn't have a m4 carbine?

I heard it was a Glock AK-47 with detachable high-capacity 30 bullet clip mags.  Collapsible stocks and barrel shrouds included...

Actually they had multiple 900-round ammo belts, and the bullets were injected with depleted uraniaum and then sprayed with teflon so they would penetrate SWAT vests. And they soaked them in rat poison so they wounds wouldn't coagulate.

/and their unexploded bombs were filled with ebola virus


You've got it all wrong, they were armed with AR-69 Dildo Assault Rifles.

i47.tinypic.com
 
2013-04-25 11:14:11 PM

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:14:33 PM

401kman: It was dumb luck that they didn't shoot anyone else. They got really lucky they didn't shoot that guy sitting in that chair.

Yes the stay at home shiat was a good move. I don't think anyone would have been better off on the street with the army going down the street with safeties off.

My point is that they probably could have done the same job
A) with a much smaller force...and not the fricking national guard and swarms of swat team guys with heavy ordinance and itchy trigger fingers.
B) The suspects in this case were easy to spot. The second suspect was missed by the inch by inch search and found by some boat crazy guy who noticed that a trail of blood was all over his backyard and precious boat. With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed. And not turned the entire block into a bullet fiesta, where no one really knows why anyone is shooting anymore.


I agree about the smaller force thing. I also think it would have worked just as well if it was handled by the locals. I think the feds and National Guard probably made things worse. I know the use of different radios by different agencies probably made communications far less efficient. On the other hand, if this had been a well organized terror cell and the Boston boys flubbed it, the press and arm chair strategists would have eaten them alive.
Of course the photo of the soldier pointing his rifle at the photographer in their own house is pretty scary. The civil liberties precedent is the most worrying outcome of this story. Like I said, we need to insure it doesn't become the norm.
 
2013-04-25 11:15:15 PM

trappedspirit: 2 words
Fog Of War


No one expects the Fog of War.
 
2013-04-25 11:17:34 PM

Evil High Priest: sporkme: civilians pushed around and confined to their homes,

Did this happen in "reality", or just in your melon? Follow-up question: How many black helicopters do you see, right now?


"Shelter in place," go here, don't go there, do that, "what's in that bag?" Mr. random guy that in no way resembles our target. They were filmed being pushy and I am not a tinfoil hatter. I don't want my policemen to act like our military any more than I want our military to act like policemen. Was it really necessary to lock down that whole portion of Boston, especially with the hindsight knowledge that a random guy going out for a smoke found the farker? Armored personnel carriers vs pressure cookers? It looked like theater, and the people were intimidated.

My cousin is a cop (she is blonde and hot, btw) and so is her husband (who is a douche), and they voiced concerns similar to mine regarding the response. They thought it was too intimidating and would have preferred that the toys and the attitude were traditional, not military. They did wish that they got to play with the toys, though.

I am not asking the police for a symmetrical response, but didn't their military equipment seem a bit extreme to you? Didn't it seem like maybe they have been looking forward to playing with all of their new toys?

We can't just accept whatever they do whenever they do it as inherently necessary, because incrementally our lack of objection will breed a consistently unacceptable enforcement apparatus. Again, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am definitely a person who expects my government to respect my rights, just as I respect my government's legitimate authority. Complacent bargaining away of rights undermines the legitimacy of authority. The response was disproportionate to the threat. Unless an army is invading Boston, I don't want to see armored vehicles, and unless the police have reason to suspect everybody, I don't want them to suspect everybody.

Either that, or whatever the police do is just fine, because police are doing it, and they always play by the rules.

/brb another helicopter
 
2013-04-25 11:18:39 PM

jso2897: trappedspirit: 2 words
Fog Of War

No one expects the Fog of War.


you never see it coming
 
2013-04-25 11:20:19 PM

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


40% dolomite.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-25 11:20:47 PM

His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.


You know you can get high without killing anybody, right?
 
2013-04-25 11:21:31 PM

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


Feh. I'm sure the two ladies in a pickup truck, the ones mistaken by cops for Dorner, were quite thrilled to learn those "rules of engagement", when those cops fired around 100 rounds at them. Boston cops, chasing two suspected terrorists? I'm surprised that the cops only shot at them, to be honest, instead of cornering him and setting fire to the friggin' boat.

Please.
 
2013-04-25 11:23:12 PM

take_flight: Talking fact based only...NO conspiracy theories...there's a bunch I don't like about the whole thing. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. My questions started with the press conference the night of the capture. The very carefully chosen language got my attention, plus the fact that the whole bombing was really a huge failure compared to what they had reportedly planned. Then this kid ran like a scared jackrabbit, running his brother over in the process. They had virtually no set plan for after the bombing. I just don't get it. I guess acts of violence on this scale really shouldn't make sense, but this whole thing smacks of confusion, even on the part of law enforcement...except for the press conference.


Here are a couple of other questions:
- At least 3 other devices were found - who placed them? It's not like they were wearing multiple backpacks.
- Who firebombed the JFK Library?
 
2013-04-25 11:23:15 PM
remus: Here's some news crew footage of it:  http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html

Not cool, toy soldiers. Not cool.
 
2013-04-25 11:23:54 PM
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?


As you may know, there is an ideal, a "concept" that we commonly refer to as the "Rule of Law" - you know, the Constitutionally Founded principles that we, as a society, are ideally to adhere to in the interest of peace, safety, order and justice.

The "thing" that (supposedly) differentiates the "good guys" from the "bad guys" is that the former are EXPECTED to adhere to the "Rule of Law" - and by so doing, they retain the "Moral High-Ground", thereby earning the trust and support of The People.

Once the "good guys" -  the AUTHORITAY - forsake or abandon the "Rule of Law" for ANY reason, the "Moral High-Ground" is lost, and all simply becomes a contest of raw force and WILL, and we surrender our future to that HOPE that those with the greatest force will act in the best interests of society at large.

Dangerous territory, don't you think?

You may have noticed that this "Might Makes Right" attitude has become increasingly dominant in our affairs - both domestic and international - over the past several decades.

Historically, this type of behavior has NOT bode well for social order, or for the future of any society that embraces such behavior.

I have no reason to suspect that history would grant an exception in our case.

Do you?
 
2013-04-25 11:24:20 PM

sporkme: We can't just accept whatever they do whenever they do it as inherently necessary, because incrementally our lack of objection will breed a consistently unacceptable enforcement apparatus. Again, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I am definitely a person who expects my government to respect my rights, just as I respect my government's legitimate authority. Complacent bargaining away of rights undermines the legitimacy of authority. The response was disproportionate to the threat. Unless an army is invading Boston, I don't want to see armored vehicles, and unless the police have reason to suspect everybody, I don't want them to suspect everybody.


Well said.
 
2013-04-25 11:25:22 PM
*scans thread*

*Tosses a huge roll of tinfoil at the usual suspects*
 
2013-04-25 11:26:15 PM

fusillade762: MrHappyRotter: Good god, it's like half of Fark is 90% haters, half is 90% retards and the other half is 90% psychos.

Haters, retards and psychos, oh my!


He got me on all three. 3x90=....well, let's just say my head hurts.
 
2013-04-25 11:28:16 PM
Walker [TotalFark]

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

I don't believe in conspiracy theories...... but I'm also not fool enough to believe what cops say.
 
2013-04-25 11:29:31 PM

FormlessOne: - At least 3 other devices were found - who placed them? It's not like they were wearing multiple backpacks.


[citation needed]

- Who firebombed the JFK Library?

[citation needed]
 
2013-04-25 11:29:59 PM

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:32:55 PM
Those cops totally overreacted.

I know because 6 days later I have a much better understanding of what happened.
 
2013-04-25 11:32:57 PM

TopoGigo: remus: Here's some news crew footage of it:  http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html

Not cool, toy soldiers. Not cool.


The guy at 1:14 needs an autotune remix.
 
2013-04-25 11:33:32 PM

cc_rider: The night this happened, I remember the local media said that police may have been using non-lethal ammunition and flash-bang grenades which could account for the alleged "explosions" that were reported, and the fact that the suspect is still alive and not filled with 300 holes. However, I have not heard any updates on that, so it may have been incorrect.


I don't know about rubber bullets, but they used flash-bangs at least twice according to the traffic over the police scanner.  They'd toss a flashbang, and then ask the helicopter pilot if he'd moved.

As to the (second) shoot out, real easy to guess what happened.  They were moving in to take a guy who they thought was armed and dangerous in the boat.  Some idiot accidentally pulled the trigger on his gun firing a shot, and all the other cops surrounding the boat assumed the shot came from the boat and started firing wildly.
 
2013-04-25 11:34:35 PM

LoneDoggie: 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


Because a bunch of paranoid comments make total sense to rational people.
 
2013-04-25 11:34:39 PM

redsquid: 401kman: It was dumb luck that they didn't shoot anyone else. They got really lucky they didn't shoot that guy sitting in that chair.

Yes the stay at home shiat was a good move. I don't think anyone would have been better off on the street with the army going down the street with safeties off.

My point is that they probably could have done the same job
A) with a much smaller force...and not the fricking national guard and swarms of swat team guys with heavy ordinance and itchy trigger fingers.
B) The suspects in this case were easy to spot. The second suspect was missed by the inch by inch search and found by some boat crazy guy who noticed that a trail of blood was all over his backyard and precious boat. With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed. And not turned the entire block into a bullet fiesta, where no one really knows why anyone is shooting anymore.

I agree about the smaller force thing. I also think it would have worked just as well if it was handled by the locals. I think the feds and National Guard probably made things worse. I know the use of different radios by different agencies probably made communications far less efficient. On the other hand, if this had been a well organized terror cell and the Boston boys flubbed it, the press and arm chair strategists would have eaten them alive.
Of course the photo of the soldier pointing his rifle at the photographer in their own house is pretty scary. The civil liberties precedent is the most worrying outcome of this story. Like I said, we need to insure it doesn't become the norm.


Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen.  Living in New York I talk to pretty reasonable people who either tacitly/actively agree with all this warrantless stuff.  Also people that actively advocate censorship to prevent designs of common devices, like the bombs these rocket scientist assholes cooked up in Boston, from reaching the internet.

The implications of these very common attitudes in and out of congress. And the massive buildup in the "intelligence" services and "homeland security" type organizations that seems to defy almost all of the austerity measures that government is legislating (actively or passively).  Leave me more concerned that I would caught in the cross fire of those that are trying to "keep me safe" than those who actively wish me harm.

In other words as a New Yorker I am very scared of friendly fire.  And think that cops waste a ton of my money to give me the illusion of safety.
 
2013-04-25 11:35:24 PM

winchester92: 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 ??


This was mentioned in numerous articles. They definitely wanted us to know this.
 
2013-04-25 11:38:31 PM

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

Feh. I'm sure the two ladies in a pickup truck, the ones mistaken by cops for Dorner, were quite thrilled to learn those "rules of engagement", when those cops fired around 100 rounds at them. Boston cops, chasing two suspected terrorists? I'm surprised that the cops only shot at them, to be honest, instead of cornering him and setting fire to the friggin' boat.



I blame the anti-smoking crusaders.

They WANTED to set fire to the boat, but no one had a match.
 
2013-04-25 11:39:32 PM

remus: weasil: 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

So sick of this part of this shiat...  "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.

WTF was law enforcement supposed to do? Tip toe down the center of the street calling "olly olly oxen free, come out come out wherever you are" ???

If they had done anything less, someone else would give them shiat for not doing enough.

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.

Does that mean an increased danger to the police?  Yes.  But they are supposed to put that pesky Constitution before their lives.  That means they don't get to go all Martial Law all over the citizens just because a SUSPECT MIGHT be nearby.  They should be following the rule of law and not recklessly pointing loaded rifles are obviously innocent civilians.

Here's some news crew footage of it:  http://www.mrctv.org/sites/default/files/embedcache/120977.html


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.  That, however, would have actually required them to articulate probable cause for each individual house, which they obviously didn't have.  Judges don't normally give the cops carte blanche to go on fishing expeditions.  So, they just went Judge Dredd and did what they liked.


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

Tinfoil tinfoil everywhere but n'er a potato to bake.
 
2013-04-25 11:41:36 PM

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:44:22 PM
Tinfoil tinfoil everywhere
But n'er a spud to bake

/FIFM
 
2013-04-25 11:44:46 PM

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


Not only that, but it's apparently a soldier in a vehicle marked "Military Police"

Nope, anyone talking martial law or shades of it is a whacko.  Nothing to see here citizens, close your window and stay in your house.
 
2013-04-25 11:44:54 PM

401kman: With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed.

ShawnDoc: They were moving in to take a guy who they thought was armed and dangerous in the boat.


See, this is what I don't get. Under normal circumstances, they might have to send in a guy in body armor. But this wasn't normal circumstances... they had a frickin' Terminator:
www.abc.net.au
They had already sent the robotic arm - with a camera on the end, mind you - to pull the tarp open. At that point:
(i) they could use the camera to see if he was armed or wearing a suicide vest;
(ii) they could use the robot arm to poke him inna face multiple times to see if he's conscious;
(iii) they could use the robot arm to grab him by a leg and lift him up in the air and dangle him until he's unconscious;
(iv) they could smack him around with the robot arm, knowing that to get away, he'd have to climb out of the boat and expose himself to the cops.

So, wtf did they open fire at all? Unless taking him alive wasn't a goal, of course.
 
2013-04-25 11:45:26 PM
The scariest thing about this is how eager people are to declare the suspect an enemy combatant and whisk him off to a secret CIA holding facility to be waterboarded and summarily executed. Hell, on Fox News yesterday the token "liberal" was talking about restricting Muslims from entering the United States. How quickly people are willing to let fear control their lives and give up all the freedoms we supposedly love truly astounds me.
 
2013-04-25 11:46:24 PM

weasil: 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

So sick of this part of this shiat...  "that dude" is doing what would be expected in the situation, whether he's sitting in an armored vehicle or not. He is ready to deal with whatever comes his way. If there had been a sniper, and that dude got taken out because his weapon was not at the ready, people would be ragging on him for being incompetent.


Am I allowed to point my gun at people in case they might do something to me?  Is it OK for me to point guns at people so that people don't rag on me for being incompetent?
 
2013-04-25 11:47:13 PM

pedrop357: 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?

THAT, well the variation of that, is the problem.  They exaggerate the risks to themselves, exaggerate the capabilities of their opponent, then treat everyone they encounter as an opponent while placing their safety above all else. This is a recipe for disaster and serious injury and death to anyone unlucky enough to be in range of them.


Well this very much may be the case however, in this instant that's complete bullshiat.

  Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding.  What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed.  So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...

It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance.  What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.
 
2013-04-25 11:49:25 PM

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


Not in my f*cking house, it isn't. If you have probable cause---not just reasonable suspicion--to believe the suspect is in my house, then sure, come on in. If you just happen to think he's somewhere in the neighborhood? Go f*ck yourself.
 
2013-04-25 11:50:30 PM

tmonsta: The scariest thing about this is how eager people are to declare the suspect an enemy combatant and whisk him off to a secret CIA holding facility to be waterboarded and summarily executed. Hell, on Fox News yesterday the token "liberal" was talking about restricting Muslims from entering the United States. How quickly people are willing to let fear control their lives and give up all the freedoms we supposedly love truly astounds me.


Because some remark made by a Fox News "token liberal" (lulz) is the Shot Heard Round The World II: Electric Boogaloo in your mind.
 
2013-04-25 11:50:38 PM

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


Well here's what I know from listening from the police scanner on thursday and friday.  So 2 guys blew up bombs injuring what, 100-200 people?  Then they killed a cop, stole a vehicle and ran off.  Police confront them, 200-300 shots(quote from the residents there) are fired, putting holes in houses and furniture, ieds thrown, backpack dropped.  One brother gets run over as the other leaves.

Younger brother throws ieds as cops chase, pulling them back.  They send robots in to disarm the bombs and evacuate the area.  Where he is is unknown as well as what he has.

Now, clearly the most logical thing to do is to have every citizen walking around so that, if they confront the younger brother again, he can throw ieds at little johnny with his parents walking buy and have uncle Ross and cousin Bobby in the middle of a gun battle hit by a stray bullet, or have another bomb go off around a bunch of people.  And to top it all off, they should have just let him escape, why look for him?  If a terrorist can't run away without the cops keeping off my property, not even going inside, just searching the area, they are INFRINGING on my liberties.

I mean do they just stand around hoping he pops up with no more bombs?  Like maybe they advised everyone to stay inside to, you know, make sure they arn't in the middle of a friggin bomb and gun fight?  Or is it easier to pick out a 19 year old in a crowd of a thousand?

all I know is i'd like a few more details.  I mean we should know what he has in his gun cache when we don't even know if he's white or muslim.
 
2013-04-25 11:51:12 PM

sn82: His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.

You know you can get high without killing anybody, right?


I refuse to believe that!

/Goes back to a bowl and some videogames.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:10 PM

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.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:19 PM

VerbalKentt: So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds..

It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys.  THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity.  Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people.  This is how good people do things.  They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter.  The police apparently don't do this.  They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:26 PM

His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.


If them selling pot provided the funds for the bombs then legalizing it would have meant they would have had less money for bomb materials. So yeah, legalize away.
 
2013-04-25 11:52:35 PM

VerbalKentt: Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding. What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed. So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...


Jesus. You really believe that, don't you? Just some food for thought here: we don't let our military behave this way in a war zone, but you're fine with it on American soil.
 
2013-04-25 11:53:28 PM

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

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

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



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


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,
 
2013-04-25 11:54:00 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


Yeah, in the chaos of "suspect already in custody" zero guns can accidentally be miscounted as three.

Cops are covering their asses because they farked up, stripped a neighbourhood of their fourth amendment rights to try and fix the problem, still couldn't find their guy, then overreacted when presented with an unarmed suspect who wasn't armed by that time.
 
2013-04-25 11:54:18 PM

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

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


Just referencing the 4th Amendment. And if you don't think probable cause was justified after an attempt at mass murder, then you are sorely mistaken.
 
2013-04-25 11:55:27 PM

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

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


They didn't search houses, they searched the yards.  They asked voluntarily to search houses, kinda like I can ask you to voluntarily suck a dick.
 
2013-04-25 11:56:35 PM

jaytkay: Those cops totally overreacted.

I know because 6 days later I have a much better understanding of what happened.



"Shiat happens" in the heat of the moment.

amitite?

Strangely, folks are often held accountable, regardless.

Aren't they?
 
2013-04-25 11:57:01 PM

401kman: Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen.


The mistaken assumption of the 'more security' crowd is that safety can be achieved. There will always be crazy and violent people. Giving up freedom for the illusion of safety is a fools bargain.
 
2013-04-25 11:59:00 PM

Theaetetus: 401kman: With all of the guys in full body armor you think that they could have sent ONE guy into find out if the suspect is armed.
ShawnDoc: They were moving in to take a guy who they thought was armed and dangerous in the boat.

See, this is what I don't get. Under normal circumstances, they might have to send in a guy in body armor. But this wasn't normal circumstances... they had a frickin' Terminator:
[www.abc.net.au image 850x566]
They had already sent the robotic arm - with a camera on the end, mind you - to pull the tarp open. At that point:
(i) they could use the camera to see if he was armed or wearing a suicide vest;
(ii) they could use the robot arm to poke him inna face multiple times to see if he's conscious;
(iii) they could use the robot arm to grab him by a leg and lift him up in the air and dangle him until he's unconscious;
(iv) they could smack him around with the robot arm, knowing that to get away, he'd have to climb out of the boat and expose himself to the cops.

So, wtf did they open fire at all? Unless taking him alive wasn't a goal, of course.


I bet 90% of them didn't know why or what they were firing at.  Its called sympathetic fire, and it is dangerous as shiat in a neighborhood of a dense city.

Your points are all good.  I didn't even know they had a robot.  I knew they had helicopters with heat vision, tanks, apcs, and enough ordinance to hurt a small country.   Yes why the hell do you need to open fire if you can't even see the suspect.  Its like theses guys were creating areas of fire like in a war.
 
2013-04-25 11:59:02 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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


http://www.cracked.com/article_20284_5-horrifying-ways-universe-has- re paid-good-deeds.html

Waay too many. Poor fellow.
 
2013-04-26 12:00:07 AM

jaytkay: cameroncrazy1984: Is Boston-ghazi a scandal yet?

Here's an actual headline: "Republicans: Boston bombings reveal intel system still broken "

/ Not gonna link to that nonsense


I never would have figured the GOP to be AMD supporters.
 
2013-04-26 12:00:23 AM

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.
 
2013-04-26 12:03:54 AM

TopoGigo: VerbalKentt: Look at the facts on the ground well the situation is unfolding. What did the officers know, two individuals deploying various IED's, more than likely had possibly killed one cop already.... car jacked one vehicle, they were armed. So in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public. Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...

Jesus. You really believe that, don't you? Just some food for thought here: we don't let our military behave this way in a war zone, but you're fine with it on American soil.


Yes you have a confirmed active shooter numb nutz.  Given a situation where an officer has the subject in front of them and he is the confirmed active shooter every single officer in the country has a right to neutralize that threat.  This is how our world works.  And how almost every single use of force policy is written in this country.

We don't let our military behave like that in a war zone?  You're high.  Many solders have opened fire on vehicles for not stopping at a road block, thinking it could have been a bomb laden car only to find they just shot a family.  Majority done with no repercussions.  So while your theory looks good on paper and in print in the real world the shiat just doesn't work that way.    Not saying that's right or correct but i'm not the one to judge their self preservation.
 
2013-04-26 12:04:07 AM

redsquid: 401kman: Its amazing how many civil liberties people would be willing to give up not to have this happen.

The mistaken assumption of the 'more security' crowd is that safety can be achieved. There will always be crazy and violent people. Giving up freedom for the illusion of safety is a fools bargain.


True, and even "sane" people get brain tumors and go crazy and kill people.  E.g. Charles Whitman.
These events cannot be prevented.

There is a massive amount of profiteering upon the notion of security....at the ultimate expense of our rights.
 
2013-04-26 12:05:46 AM

jaytkay: They had one gun?

Odds are the transit cop who was badly wounded in Watertown took some friendly fire.


Yeah, I said that in another thread. There was chatter over the scanner as they were transporting him to the hospital that alluded to him being hit by firendly fire.
 
2013-04-26 12:06:05 AM
www.charlock.org
 
2013-04-26 12:06:14 AM
Nobody is claiming the body (of the perp, Tamerlan), not even his wife.

Wow.  Deserved, absolutely, for his heinous acts, but wow.  He will end up being cremated and spread over the back lawn of some municipal site.  No tombstone, memorial service, etc.  Good.
 
2013-04-26 12:06:32 AM

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

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

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


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


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,


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

Also, distracting from criticism of your unhealthy fantasies by shaming others' marijuana usage is equally disingenuous.
 
2013-04-26 12:07:38 AM

pedrop357: VerbalKentt: So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...  It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys.  THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity.  Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people.  This is how good people do things.  They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter.  The police apparently don't do this.  They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.


Maybe I should have been more clear shooting first when properly identifying this subject and he still fails to comply with a verbal command...then fark it he's identified, he's failing to comply, he's taken life, he has the possibility to take more life, a safe shot can be made then "shooting first" is completely justifiable given the totality of the circumstances.
 
2013-04-26 12:09:23 AM

Giltric: jaytkay: They had one gun?

Odds are the transit cop who was badly wounded in Watertown took some friendly fire.

Yeah, I said that in another thread. There was chatter over the scanner as they were transporting him to the hospital that alluded to him being hit by firendly fire.


Bullshiat.
 
2013-04-26 12:09:30 AM

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

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

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


If that's the case, I'm less upset. I still don't love that police can search my yard without probable cause or a warrant, but under extreme circumstances such as this I can accept it.  Based on the video posted a little upthread, though, it sure sounded like they weren't asking permission to search houses.
For the record, if given the choice between sucking a dick and getting my house searched by SWAT teams, I might just go for the dick. Both would disgust me and leave a bad taste in my mouth, but at least sucking a dick wouldn't feel so much like rape.
 
2013-04-26 12:09:56 AM

VerbalKentt: pedrop357: VerbalKentt: So  in that situation any leo in their right mind is going to shoot first on those guys, they've proven they are a threat to live, property and the public.  Okay they'd give them one second or two to show hands before unleashing some rounds...  It's very simple to look back at situations and judge from a distance. What you have to put yourself in the officers shoes at that time, in that situation with all those various factors in place at that moment.

The problem with them shooting first is that this makes it very possible that they will shoot people who merely look like these guys.  THAT is where my problem primarily lies.

In their shoes, I'm still not opening fire on anyone in the vicinity.  Just because a dispatcher says that a police vehicle was stolen, I'm not opening fire on a vehicle that is marked police just in case they're in there.

I may have to hide and assess things in order to avoid shooting the wrong people.  This is how good people do things.  They realize that they aren't the only ones that matter.  The police apparently don't do this.  They sure as hell don't put themselves in anyone else's shoes.

Maybe I should have been more clear shooting first when properly identifying this subject and he still fails to comply with a verbal command...then fark it he's identified, he's failing to comply, he's taken life, he has the possibility to take more life, a safe shot can be made then "shooting first" is completely justifiable given the totality of the circumstances.


i'm guessing they didn't want them alive so, you know, they could find out the extent of the plot.  Like if both of them died, think of how many conspiracy theories would be going around making them sound like they're the mob.
 
2013-04-26 12:10:19 AM

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


They should use him for pothole filler on Boylston street at the finish line for next year's race. Let 40,000 pairs of shoes pound on his remains.
 
2013-04-26 12:10:53 AM

FormlessOne: take_flight: Talking fact based only...NO conspiracy theories...there's a bunch I don't like about the whole thing. All of this is just the tip of the iceberg. My questions started with the press conference the night of the capture. The very carefully chosen language got my attention, plus the fact that the whole bombing was really a huge failure compared to what they had reportedly planned. Then this kid ran like a scared jackrabbit, running his brother over in the process. They had virtually no set plan for after the bombing. I just don't get it. I guess acts of violence on this scale really shouldn't make sense, but this whole thing smacks of confusion, even on the part of law enforcement...except for the press conference.

Here are a couple of other questions:
- At least 3 other devices were found - who placed them? It's not like they were wearing multiple backpacks.
- Who firebombed the JFK Library?


Yeah I was wondering about that I thought there were 4 total they found.... Did they have 2 backpacks each?
 
2013-04-26 12:12:18 AM

Virulency: Yeah I was wondering about that I thought there were 4 total they found.... Did they have 2 backpacks each?


No, the other two turned out to just be abandoned backpacks. They asploded them to be safe, but it turned out they were normal.
 
2013-04-26 12:13:28 AM

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?  Cops may have wanted to kill the kid, I'm sure many did not.  They are professionals not bloodthirsty thugs.
 
2013-04-26 12:14:42 AM

Dimensio: FormlessOne: - At least 3 other devices were found - who placed them? It's not like they were wearing multiple backpacks.

[citation needed]

- Who firebombed the JFK Library?

[citation needed]


There was a fire at the JFK library, it was just a fire, and unrelated to the marathon bombing. Initial press reports were that it was because of a bomb. Like most press that day, it was wrong, and soon retracted.

Just because some sociopaths blow up a public event doesn't mean all the usual accidents and emergencies stop happening.
 
2013-04-26 12:15:08 AM

His Sonshine: FTA: We already knew that Dzhokhar was a pothead..

But by all means let's legalize marijuana. So we get more of these kinds of things? No thanks.


You're missing the point.  They made their money to fund their terror by selling pot.  The DHS needs to start selling weed and cut out the terrorists opportunity for fundraising ... for the children!
 
2013-04-26 12:15:48 AM
Meh.  No tears for terrorists.
 
2013-04-26 12:16:16 AM

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

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

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


Do you know what words mean? The courts have been fairly generous in their definitions of probable cause, both in the sense of the Fourth to justify a warrant, and in the broader sense of when police can skip getting a warrant due to exigent circumstances. Nowhere in the history of the judiciary has "something really, really bad happened, so we're going to search all the things" been said. This was not "hot pursuit" as defined by the courts. There was no active firefight. There was no immediate threat to life. There was no probable cause to search these houses without a warrant. It's doubtful there was even enough PC for a judge to issue warrants for all these houses. In short, THE POLICE CAN NOT BEHAVE THIS WAY IN AMERICA.
 
2013-04-26 12:17:41 AM

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

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

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

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


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

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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

It was Jack Ruby.

It was Eric Rudolph.

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

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

No, that was Daniel "Day" Lewis.

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


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

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


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

STRYPERSWINE: Meh.  No tears for terrorists.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


Then why were they making sure to use rubber bullets?

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

medius: jso2897: trappedspirit: 2 words
Fog Of War

No one expects the Fog of War.

you never see it coming


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

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

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


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

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


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

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


When in doubt, make shiat up.

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

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

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


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

whidbey: *scans thread*

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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


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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

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



Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

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

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


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



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

And USE you they will - and have.

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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

You say that now.


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

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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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



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

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

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


Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

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

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


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


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

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.


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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.


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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

You say that now.

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

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


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

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


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

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

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

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


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


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

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


Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

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

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


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


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

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


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

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

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

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


/Got evidence?


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

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

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

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


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

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

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

No.  But that's not what happened here.


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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.

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


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

OK, so that's an ass analogy, but I'm too sleepy to come up with a better one. Bottom line is that we pay the cops to be the law and they need to be held to that standard. The fact that they're scared, or hopped up on adrenaline, or dreaming of Dirty Harry, or whatever does not give them the right to exceed their authority.
 
2013-04-26 12:49:41 AM

whidbey: Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

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

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


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


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

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.

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



Here's your "authoritay" whidbey.

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

You say that now.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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


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


Whidbey = "Lefty"?

Who would have thought???

/Pass that bong,,,

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


Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

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

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


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


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

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.

I don't often use all caps
BUT WHEN I DO, I MEAN BUSINESS


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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.

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

OK, so that may be understandable on a human level, but it doesn't make it OK.


.....


.... what?
 
2013-04-26 12:51:54 AM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Keep in mind, NOBODY who went through it is complaining and the guy who's boat they shot up is not complaining and all the pictures I have seen of bullet holes in peoples walls are from people who are not complaining.  So after you give us your brilliant plan on how you would have handled the manhut (which ...


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

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

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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


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

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

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

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


/Got evidence?

Wow!  Like you would listen to evidence.  And I'm sure that the cops, who had to finally remind everyone over the scanner that their mikes were open were putting on a show for us.


Ass u me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

Amos Quito: whidbey: Well, that's your problem, whidbey.

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

"Liberals" exercising power"? Whidbey CHEERS!

"Conservatives exercising these SAME powers"? Whidbey FREAKS!

And therein lies your idiocy.


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


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

And USE you they will - and have.

It's all about POWER and CONTROL, lad.

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


Here's your "authoritay" whidbey.

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

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


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

TheManofPA:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Once again you have no concept of what the term "probable cause" means and you are resorting to personal attacks when confronted. Not going to repeat this information again.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

/csb.jpg

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

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

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

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

Once again you have no concept of what the term "probable cause" means and you are resorting to personal attacks when confronted. Not going to repeat this information again.

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


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

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


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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


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

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

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

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


/Got evidence?

Wow!  Like you would listen to evidence.  And I'm sure that the cops, who had to finally remind everyone over the scanner that their mikes were open were putting on a show for us.

Ass u me.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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


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

/csb.jpg

/just saying what I heard.


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


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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


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

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

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

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


/Got evidence?

Wow!  Like you would listen to evidence.  And I'm sure that the cops, who had to finally remind everyone over the scanner that their mikes were open were putting on a show for us.

Ass u me.

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

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

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

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


Well, obviously googling something is a legitimate source.

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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


You'd be surprised.
 
2013-04-26 01:16:09 AM
Greylight~

"Don't build people into unrealistic heros and don't hate them when they turn out to be human. Learn from the tragedy and make adjustments."

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

StopLurkListen: Can I add something here too? The searches did not violate the Fourth Amendment because nothing found in your home would have been allowable as evidence in court.


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

And we wonder how Germany turned into Nazi Germany.


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

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


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

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

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


fark your post 9/11 world.

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

sporkme:  BUT THIS IS AM EMERGENCY ZOMG CONSTITUTION IS VOID


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

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

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

Yeah, super voluntary.


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

iGuns to be confiscated, bricked


/nothing can be derived


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

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

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


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

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


/Think of Chris Dorner

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


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

You CLAIM to have heard something on a scanner.

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

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


/Got evidence?

Wow!  Like you would listen to evidence.  And I'm sure that the cops, who had to finally remind everyone over the scanner that their mikes were open were putting on a show for us.

Ass u me.

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

fark your post 9/11 world.

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



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

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


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

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

Never trust cops to tell the truth.  Ever.


Hear, hear!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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


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

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


The discussion isn't about what it takes to get a warrant for some generic suspect - it's about whether this was a situation where a warantless search would be allowed, and it looks like it was.
 
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".
 
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?
 
2013-04-26 02:46:42 PM

profplump: 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.


These things don't have distinct definitions - the whole point is that they're judgment calls made by the police to carry out immediate action based on what they believe to be exigent circumstances. There are two types of exigent circumstances that justify this kind of action: to enforce criminal law (that is, to arrest a suspect or prevent him from fleeing) and to prevent individuals or property from being harmed. Both of these conditions would have been satisfied, and no court is going to find (if anybody had complained, which they didn't) that exigent circumstances were not present.

The court is obviously going to recognize the immediate danger posed by the suspect, as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off after the suspect was known to be there. You can disagree with this, of course - insofar as you still have an inalienable right to be wrong on the internet.
 
2013-04-26 03:06:42 PM

TopoGigo: 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.


What I posted was from an actual State Supreme Court decision. What you posted wasn't from my "citation"; it was from Wikipedia's own paragraph which tried to explain things in a dumbed-down manner. Even then, the whole point is that only one out of a number of very generally-defined circumstances need to be present in order for there to be exigent circumstances. 

If you insist on talking about something you clearly know very little about, the least you could do is approach the discussion with a sense of open-minded curiosity rather than continuing to make assertions that have no basis in actual fact.
 
2013-04-26 04:18:51 PM

Biological Ali: profplump: 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.

These things don't have distinct definitions - the whole point is that they're judgment calls made by the police to carry out immediate action based on what they believe to be exigent circumstances. There are two types of exigent circumstances that justify this kind of action: to enforce criminal law (that is, to arrest a suspect or prevent him from fleeing)


This is either willfully wrong, or you misstated it badly. There is no exception to enforce criminal law, or there would be no such thing as warrants.

and to prevent individuals or property from being harmed. Both of these conditions would have been satisfied, and no court is going to find (if anybody had complained, which they didn't) that exigent circumstances were not present.

While this is absolutely right as it applies to one house, it is not an obvious, foregone conclusion that it applies to a large number of houses. Unless, of course, you have a citation of precedent from a district or supreme court case.
Also, the fact that no residents complained doesn't mean it's none of my damned business, it only means nobody who has standing to bring a court case has complained yet.

The court is obviously going to recognize the immediate danger posed by the suspect,

True

as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off

Possibly true, but non-obvious

after the suspect was known to be there.

Um, can you define "known"?

You can disagree with this, of course - insofar as you still have an inalienable right to be wrong on the internet.

No, it's perfectly reasonable to disagree with this. I can't make a claim that the court wouldn't agree with you, but to my knowledge there isn't precedent for large, multi-home warrantless searches like this, and it damned sure isn't obvious. I'd like some precedent set, as a matter of fact. As I said earlier, I'd really like some lawyers to go pro bono and bring a suit on behalf of a resident for damages of $1 just to set the rules for the future. I'd like it appealed one way or the other all the way to the Supremes.

Biological Ali: What I posted was from an actual State Supreme Court decision. What you posted wasn't from my "citation"; it was from Wikipedia's own paragraph which tried to explain things in a dumbed-down manner. Even then, the whole point is that only one out of a number of very generally-defined circumstances need to be present in order for there to be exigent circumstances.


Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

If you insist on talking about something you clearly know very little about, the least you could do is approach the discussion with a sense of open-minded curiosity rather than continuing to make assertions that have no basis in actual fact.

Funny. If you're going to be dismissive of what I have to say, the least you could do is acknowledge that I do, in fact, know something about the Fourth. If you think my point is retarded, you're free to say so, but don't pretend I'm just making sh*t up here. I haven't claimed that you don't know what you're talking about; just that you're wrong.
 
2013-04-26 04:21:33 PM

jaytkay: 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.


Which part is imaginary?  The part where law enforcement opened fire on an unarmed suspect in a residential neighborhood?  Or the part where they claimed that Tsarnaev fired upon them?  Or the part that cops lie?

Some of you folks have a tough time with reality.
 
2013-04-26 04:33:23 PM

whidbey: 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.


Nobody is spreading blatant lies about police work here, damnit. You aren't remotely new here, so you've seen all the same news stories the rest of us have. Cops are sometimes unprofessional, vindictive bullies. When a cop is killed, they tend to be more unprofessional and more vindictive. Sometimes they lie about it. It may be paranoia to assume that a city full of cops act like the "bad apples" we see in the news, but it is naivety to assume they don't. Trust but verify, as the man says.

And, no, I'm sorry. Nobody in a free country "owes the police a major apology" for anything. F*ck that. The police, by and large, are not heroes of superhuman stature. The police are our employees, given a sacred trust. A trust that they often abuse. We have a civic duty to make sure they are doing their jobs within the bounds of their authority. We have a civic duty--one which we as a nation fail miserably at--to ensure that anyone in a position of power who abuses that power be punished severely. The authoritarians and the badge-lickers among us are quick to say that if we have nothing to hide, we have nothing to fear, so why does that logic not apply to the police?

Also, unlike the other poster raising my blood pressure in this thread, you have not even attempted to justify your assertions that the police conducted themselves properly and within their authority. Why is that, exactly?
 
2013-04-26 04:45:34 PM

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

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!


More like "kill them and then the details can be arranged to fit whatever narrative emerges that's most palatable to the collection of government agencies involved without the complication of fact-checkable testimony."
 
2013-04-26 04:46:45 PM
And then they took one alive, which farked the whole thing.
 
2013-04-26 05:26:42 PM

TopoGigo: This is either willfully wrong, or you misstated it badly. There is no exception to enforce criminal law, or there would be no such thing as warrants.


I stated it just fine. Here's how the other court case mentioned over there states it:

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.

There's nothing there about trails of blood or about the police having to see the guy run into one specific house - the only thing is that the police have to have a reasonable belief that their actions were necessary to prevent the suspect from escaping or to prevent people from being harmed.

TopoGigo: as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off

Possibly true, but non-obvious


No - that is, in fact, very obvious. It would only be "non-obvious" to someone who has no familiarity whatsoever with how courts judge the reasonableness of police actions.

TopoGigo: after the suspect was known to be there.

Um, can you define "known"?


You realize that the police not only saw the suspects in Watertown but had an actual shootout with them, right? The one which resulted in one suspect getting killed and the other fleeing and going into hiding?
 

TopoGigo: Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".


What I've been trying to explain to you is that there are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that have nothing to do with "probable cause" as the term is commonly understood. Obviously a warrant is not needed if police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed right then, or that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed - everybody knows that. What you don't seem to have gotten is that this is just one of several exigent circumstances in which police can justifiably take immediate action without a warrant. Another is the police taking action to prevent a suspect (that they are already in search of and who knows that he's being searched for) from escaping. Another is the police taking action to prevent people or property from being harmed. Both of these would have been satisfied here.
 
2013-04-26 06:31:51 PM
whidbey
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.
How would you propose to manage that? What state doesn't have an insane, criminal gang with badges?
 
2013-04-26 07:36:28 PM

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: This is either willfully wrong, or you misstated it badly. There is no exception to enforce criminal law, or there would be no such thing as warrants.

I stated it just fine. Here's how the other court case mentioned over there states it:

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.


Again, that's true, with limitations on the "escape" or "frustration" parts. (The police can't just bust in to prevent the escape of a fugitive if it's outside the scope of a "hot pursuit" situation or the suspect is unusually dangerous. You can easily apply the "reasonable" standard to that: most suspects trying to escape don't burrow into the earth; they go outside where the police already are. If that specific opinion says what it appears to, it's a little outside the norm. The "frustrating...efforts" is vague enough to be useless. But that's not what you said. You claimed an exception to enforce criminal law, which would be any damn thing they wanted to do.

There's nothing there about trails of blood or about the police having to see the guy run into one specific house - the only thing is that the police have to have a reasonable belief that their actions were necessary to prevent the suspect from escaping or to prevent people from being harmed.

TopoGigo: as well as the difference between "South Dakota" and a specific neighbourhood that had been cordoned off

Possibly true, but non-obvious

No - that is, in fact, very obvious. It would only be "non-obvious" to someone who has no familiarity whatsoever with how courts judge the reasonableness of police actions.


Again, you're ignoring the magnitude. A search of one house is obviously reasonable. A search of a million houses is obviously unreasonable. Somewhere between the two numbers is a line. It is not obvious to someone who isn't a lawyer specializing in this area where that line is. The courts do tend to fall pretty heavily on the side of police business, especially in areas where (in my opinion) waiting for a warrant would be a pain in the ass rather than a real detriment, or where destruction of evidence is concerned. I don't believe destruction of evidence qualifies as an exigent circumstance, but the courts largely disagree with me. The point stands, though, unless you can show me otherwise that this situation has not been addressed by the courts. They have very clearly come down on the side of property owners in cases of separate apartments or rooms in fraternity houses involving drugs, but I don't know of anything involving dangerous assholes.

TopoGigo: after the suspect was known to be there.

Um, can you define "known"?

You realize that the police not only saw the suspects in Watertown but had an actual shootout with them, right? The one which resulted in one suspect getting killed and the other fleeing and going into hiding?

Now you can only narrow it down to a city? Good lord, man. That doesn't satisfy any reasonable definition of "knowing where he was" where searches of houses are concerned. Unless you're saying that police had the right to conduct house-to-house searches in an entire city of 32,000 people, that is. I understand they had a neighborhood cordoned off, but are you stating (without a factual basis, as far as Google tells me) that he was indeed found in that neighborhood later?

TopoGigo: Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

What I've been trying to explain to you is that there are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that have nothing to do with "probable cause" as the term is commonly understood.

Probable cause "as commonly understood" has two meanings. I know that the law doesn't usually use the words "probable cause" for exceptions to the requirements for a warrant, but the police procedurals on TV do, so that's the general understanding of those words. Maybe I shouldn't be contributing to ignorance of lawyer-ese, but it seemed better to use the term that most people would recognize.

Obviously a warrant is not needed if police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed right then, or that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed - everybody knows that. What you don't seem to have gotten is that this is just one of several exigent circumstances in which police can justifiably take immediate action without a warrant. Another is the police taking action to prevent a suspect (that they are already in search of and who knows that he's being searched for) from escaping. Another is the police taking action to prevent people or property from being harmed. Both of these would have been satisfied here.

You keep repeating things that I have already agreed with. I get it. You don't seem to get the fact that there is a difference between one house and four blocks. I am not a lawyer, nor am I a judge, so I can't say what the courts would consider reasonable in that situation. I can say that it exceeds any semblance of reasonable behavior as I see it. In fact, I'm sorely tempted to go on a research vacation so I can cite you case law. I really don't have time to do that without the wife giving me the stink-eye from the other room, but I may just do it anyway.
 
2013-04-26 07:49:41 PM

OnlyM3: whidbey
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. How would you propose to manage that? What state doesn't have an insane, criminal gang with badges?


Big Rock Candy Mountain. In fact, all the cops have wooden legs.

/there's a lake of stew
//and of whiskey too
 
2013-04-26 07:58:32 PM
OK, after some cursory research, it appears that the level of certainty of finding the person inside his/her own home to justify a warrantless search has been decided several ways over the last 30 years. One listed only a "reason to believe" while two more listed "probable cause". The majority of cases, however used the "reasonable suspicion" test. They have consistently been harsher on looking for a suspect in a third-party houses. When dealing with a large number of third-party houses, I don't believe you could call that "reasonable suspicion".
 
2013-04-26 08:30:44 PM

Biological Ali: TopoGigo: Are you being willfully obtuse here? Nobody, not even the craziest Libertarian poster, is claiming that the police would have needed a warrant to search one house that they had probable cause to believe asshole jr. was in. Nothing you've said has shown that the same logic applies to a multi-house area other than "because I said so".

What I've been trying to explain to you is that there are exceptions to the requirement to get a warrant that have nothing to do with "probable cause" as the term is commonly understood. Obviously a warrant is not needed if police have probable cause to believe that a crime is being committed right then, or that evidence of a crime is about to be destroyed - everybody knows that. What you don't seem to have gotten is that this is just one of several exigent circumstances in which police can justifiably take immediate action without a warrant. Another is the police taking action to prevent a suspect (that they are already in search of and who knows that he's being searched for) from escaping. Another is the police taking action to prevent people or property from being harmed. Both of these would have been satisfied here.



I haven't been following this conversation or your references closely (sorry, busy day) but I must say that this "massive search" thing rubs me the wrong way big-time. Seems to go all RAPE RAPE on the Bill of Rights.

You say there are "exceptions" - some of which may seem reasonable and understandable - the one in question here of course is "seeking a fugitive - a potentially dangerous SUSPECTED felon", so you seem to feel that a door-to-door, warrantless search by heavily armed paramilitary-style units - with occupants being herded out at gunpoint - hands raised - is "warranted" (great pun, eh?), and is supported by (some law somewhere? some precedent?).

Hundreds of homes were searched fruitlessly. Thousands of people were forced from their homes at gunpoint - and it seems there is little doubt that "other crimes" were stumbled upon in the process: It seems almost guaranteed that someone's indoor marijuana garden would have been "discovered", maybe a "meth lab", or other illegal activities.

Question: Is the "accidental discovery" of such illegal operations prosecutable? Can the evidence uncovered during said warantless, broad "sweeps" be used against the suspects?

Why or why not?

Thanks in advance, Biological Ali.
 
2013-04-26 08:36:13 PM

TopoGigo: Now you can only narrow it down to a city?


I thought it was understood that I was referring to the specific neighbourhood in Watertown where the shootout occurred. They didn't cordon off the entire city; it was a very small area.


TopoGigo: OK, after some cursory research, it appears that the level of certainty of finding the person inside his/her own home to justify a warrantless search has been decided several ways over the last 30 years. One listed only a "reason to believe" while two more listed "probable cause". The majority of cases, however used the "reasonable suspicion" test. They have consistently been harsher on looking for a suspect in a third-party houses. When dealing with a large number of third-party houses, I don't believe you could call that "reasonable suspicion".


Even in the (highly, highly unlikely) event that the need to apprehend a fleeing suspect wouldn't have risen to the level of "exigent circumstance", the need to protect people and property from harm most certainly would have. This includes not just locating the suspect himself, but also ensuring that there aren't any bombs or other dangerous materials in the area that he was known to be in.

This is what I've been trying to get through to you. You seem to be under the impression that there is only one kind of exception to the general requirement to get a warrant, and your entire argument seems to be based on suggesting that this one exception was, perhaps, maybe, not satisfied here. There are, however, a number of exceptions - each of which are generally defined with no bright lines to say that the police have obviously failed to meet them - and only one (1) needs to be satisfied in order for there to be exigent circumstances present.

Nobody is going to make any complaint, and no case is going to arise out of this, because of how obvious it is that there is no case to be made against how the police acted here.
 
2013-04-26 09:03:36 PM

cameroncrazy1984: tankjr: jaytkay: ZOMG all the exact details were not known immediately in a chaotic situation!!!

UNPOSSIBLE!!!!

No details at all were known. There's an unidentified person prone in a shrinkwrapped boat.

Better fire everything we have into this unknown person.

Wat.


If they thought he was armed you can be sure no one stuck their head in the boat for an ID.

So you have an unidentified particular individual in a boat and a number of agents discharging firearms into said boat and ostensibly said person.

Was it the shrinkwrapped bit that threw you? Up here in New England, we shrinkwrap our boats for winter storage. It's the white covering that you can see on the boat in the photos and video.
 
2013-04-26 09:04:56 PM
BPD is damn lucky no civilians were hurt during any of that gun fire.  You know that would have been initially reported as the fault of the brothers.
 
2013-04-26 09:09:30 PM

Biological Ali: Nobody is going to make any complaint, and no case is going to arise out of this, because of how obvious it is that there is no case to be made against how the police acted here.



And the entirely unrelated crimes that were no doubt "discovered"?
 
2013-04-26 09:14:35 PM

Amos Quito: Question: Is the "accidental discovery" of such illegal operations prosecutable? Can the evidence uncovered during said warantless, broad "sweeps" be used against the suspects?


I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be yes - the general rule is that any evidence uncovered during proper police activity is admissible, and the police taking immediate action during clearly exigent circumstances would be more or less guaranteed to be considered as such.
 
2013-04-26 09:26:23 PM

Biological Ali: Amos Quito: Question: Is the "accidental discovery" of such illegal operations prosecutable? Can the evidence uncovered during said warantless, broad "sweeps" be used against the suspects?

I'm not a lawyer, but my guess would be yes - the general rule is that any evidence uncovered during proper police activity is admissible, and the police taking immediate action during clearly exigent circumstances would be more or less guaranteed to be considered as such.



I hope you're wrong. This shiat has potential for abuse written all over it.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

The War On Drugs had already gutted the Constitution, and now along comes the War On Terror to scavenge the carcass.

I hope that a good lawyer or possibly a non-profit outfit will work to have this tossed - and if convictions arise, I hope they will be overturned by SCOTUS.
 
2013-04-26 10:26:16 PM

Frederick: BPD is damn lucky no civilians were hurt during any of that gun fire.  You know that would have been initially still be reported as the fault of the brothers.


Furkst.
 
2013-04-26 10:39:46 PM

OnlyM3: whidbey
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. How would you propose to manage that? What state doesn't have an insane, criminal gang with badges?


Your unfounded disdain for law enforcement is repulsive to most people. You are aware of this?
 
2013-04-26 10:54:29 PM

Amos Quito: I hope you're wrong. This shiat has potential for abuse written all over it.


Well, in my experience, he's not.

If you have authorities (police, fire, etc) in your house, due to an emergency NOT caused by you, due to pure bad luck where someone else does a crime against you and you need help and called 911, they come in (and so you "let" them in for obvious reasons) and they find a... home gardening situation that the local statues prohibit, shall we say, your ass WILL get arrested. And absolutely no sympathy will be given.

At least in IL, it will. I have no idea how it works in Massachusetts.
 
2013-04-27 12:29:50 AM

itazurakko: Amos Quito: I hope you're wrong. This shiat has potential for abuse written all over it.

Well, in my experience, he's not.

If you have authorities (police, fire, etc) in your house, due to an emergency NOT caused by you, due to pure bad luck where someone else does a crime against you and you need help and called 911, they come in (and so you "let" them in for obvious reasons) and they find a... home gardening situation that the local statues prohibit, shall we say, your ass WILL get arrested. And absolutely no sympathy will be given.

At least in IL, it will. I have no idea how it works in Massachusetts.



pennpoliticalreview.org

INSTRUCTIONS:

1. Open lid
2. Insert any and all Constitutional illusions of "freedom", "liberty", "rights" and/or "justice"
3. Close lid
4. Flush
5. WATCH YOUR ASS

Welcome to Amerika, Comoderade.

Do your children and grandchildren a favor. Don't teach them of the ideas and ideals on which this nation was originally conceived and built, or of the liberties of thought and action that we and our forebears once enjoyed - because it's OVER, dudes.

It was nice while it lasted, but regaling starving children with stories of Opulent Feasts of Plenty Past when no hope exists is nothing but cruelty.

Teach them instead that conformity, fear, deprivation, subjugation, cowering and desperation are NOBLE GOALS that they should be happy look forward to experiencing.

Ignorance is bliss - or as close as they'll ever get.
 
2013-04-27 12:47:49 AM
Extra amusing part is, you should see how much money they will claim your home gardening situation is worth. Hell, if only I had that money for realz...

/am I bitter? maybe
//but the point is, you think if you're "friendly" and always sucking up all the time and you let them in like Officer Friendly then they'll look the other way because you're a "Good Citizen"? They will NOT and in fact they will laugh at your chumpy self for being so naive as to think they would.
 
Displayed 424 of 424 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report