Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Followup, radio-controlled car  
•       •       •

30998 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Apr 2013 at 9:16 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



421 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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 [TotalFark]
2013-04-25 09:36:14 PM  
3.bp.blogspot.comView Full Size

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.comView Full Size
 
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 10:10:48 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.comView Full Size

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.usView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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:
abc.net.auView Full Size

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  
charlock.orgView Full Size
 
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 12:19:23 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.