jwulf 179 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 So, has anyone thought about Boston being practice for more insideous things? Hopefully I am way over thinking it... The way they shut down the city and kept everyone indoors and went house to house worked well to find that little shitbag, but it seems like it would work all too well for door to door confiscations and imposing martial law... 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
liberty -r- death 1,445 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 That is why when they come knocking to search for the "suspect" you politely say "no" not without a warrant. If they don't take no for an answer make sure the door closes behind them. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mancat 2,368 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 they already have plenty of practice dude. that's how they did what they did so seamlessly. LE and military practice MOUT and lockdown procedures training on entire mock towns that are often the size of a few city blocks. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zombiehunter762 376 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Did you mean insidious? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remek 771 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Its not so much insidious, but they definitely are use it to condition people to being imprisoned in their own houses. The non-reading of the miranda rights to a US citizen is what concerns me most at this point, but definitely, we have to recognize what this was, and tell people when we see them. Many will never get it until they are subjects of their government, but for now, we have to do what we can. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Shandlanos 1,470 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 The fact that they didn't read someone their rights is disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as the gestappo running house to house, performing thousands of warrantless searches and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. This is patently unconstitutional, and the circumstances absolutely do not warrant the wholesale surrender of civil rights. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mancat 2,368 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 The fact that they didn't read someone their rights is disturbing, but not nearly as disturbing as the gestappo running house to house, performing thousands of warrantless searches and GETTING AWAY WITH IT. This is patently unconstitutional, and the circumstances absolutely do not warrant the wholesale surrender of civil rights. Most people in that situation probably just let the police come on in. Has there been any evidence of an actual unwarranted, forced search? 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netstorm 90 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Seems the liberal states just let them do what they want. I would hope the conservative states would have a problem with them going in without warrants. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
RobRez 1,895 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Well, being that they were actively looking for the bomber, I wouldn't say it was practice, I'd say that this is what they have been practicing for. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Garys4598 1,065 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) Public Safety Exemption - where did that come from??? We saw an entire city put on a military style lock down - the amount of force was awesome, almost scary. I am glad they got the suspects, but it shows what the feds can do if they want to. Reportedly one CNN reporter said when they checked homes they asked to search them, if they were told no they went in anyway. Again, we have to be very careful to ballance/protect our liberties against our desire to be protected from all evil. Right now I am afraid our liberties are taking back seat.Apparently the Public Safety Exemption takes away the long held right that you can not be forced to incriminate yourself and even more allows the information obtained from you to be used as self incrimination in court. I had never heard of this."The public safety exception not only permits the unwarned questioning of a suspect, but also allows the government to introduce any statement yielded by such interrogation as evidence in court.The exception is triggered when authorities have an objectively reasonable need to protect themselves or the public from a clear and present danger." Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/04/20...#ixzz2AaxNQ9Ac Edited April 20, 2013 by Gary 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Zombiehunter762 376 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) I really don't give a FK what a liberal/Marxist does since they are pussies. Myself I'm not letting anybody in that I don't know. So if your LEO, FBI, CIA, Military you better have a fking warrant. And yea I don't live in one of those liberal pussyfoot states. We also need to keep our focus on the issues at hand. Every time the news media is covering a topic for days that Communist in Charge signs some BS into law. Edited April 20, 2013 by MfWiC Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sdustin 578 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Yes this is "what" they have trainned for, but what they have never known is how the public would react to having your freedom taken away. And yes this public safety bullshit is just proof that the feds can do what they want. How long before the fact that you own an unregistered semiauto military rifle makes you a clear and present danger? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
theorangeplanet 968 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 Yeah, I'm sure that all those officers and those in charge of them were thinking the whole time, "Even though we're chasing a homicidal maniac with bombs, grenades, and guns... we should glean what we can from this experience so we can infringe on the rights of American citizens, later!" I can guarantee you that not one of those officers desires to be back in that same situation, going through houses and back yards checking every corner for anything short of a deadly and immediate threat to the public. Well, being that they were actively looking for the bomber, I wouldn't say it was practice, I'd say that this is what they have been practicing for. Exactly... how some of you let your Obama hate cloud all reasonable perspective blows my mind. 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
SouthernOne 203 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 (edited) What amazes me is that the homeowner walked up to the boat after seeing blood on the cover, pulled the cover back and saw the dude covered with blood in the floor. Then went and called 911 and they brought the 82nd Airborne and the 5th Fleet to capture the dude. Sort of an overkill. All they needed was a good ole Southern Sheriff to say, "Come on boy, it's over." Edited April 20, 2013 by SouthernOne 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Venia 249 Posted April 20, 2013 Report Share Posted April 20, 2013 If it were indeed practice for the situation you described, they would have to know It would not go so well if thousands were firing back instead of just two kids. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remek 771 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 Yeah, I'm sure that all those officers and those in charge of them were thinking the whole time, "Even though we're chasing a homicidal maniac with bombs, grenades, and guns... we should glean what we can from this experience so we can infringe on the rights of American citizens, later!" I can guarantee you that not one of those officers desires to be back in that same situation, going through houses and back yards checking every corner for anything short of a deadly and immediate threat to the public. Who said the grunts were gleaning what they could from the situation? The people in charge would be doing it, not the grunts. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remek 771 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html Good article. quote: This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.” Its not a law, its rule of procedure written by the department of justice. This means that it IS NOT LAW. It also means that it may very well be illegal. On top of that, its an extension of a rule, and not really a rule in and of itself! Moreover, it does not extend to illegal searching of homes without permission or warrant. YOU SHOULD BE PEEVED ABOUT THIS!!!!! Edited April 21, 2013 by Remek 3 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 I thought of it as being a plan cooked up by DHS to keep the funding flowing. They need more ford raptors and shit. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
storm6490 2,768 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2013/04/dzhokhar_tsarnaev_and_miranda_rights_the_public_safety_exception_and_terrorism.html Good article. quote: This is an extension of a rule the Justice Department wrote for the FBI—without the oversight of any court—called the “public safety exception.” Its not a law, its rule of procedure written by the department of justice. This means that it IS NOT LAW. It also means that it may very well be illegal. On top of that, its an extension of a rule, and not really a rule in and of itself! Moreover, it does not extend to illegal searching of homes without permission or warrant. YOU SHOULD BE PEEVED ABOUT THIS!!!!! http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/a-debate-over-delaying-suspects-miranda-rights.html?_r=0 yet i stll hate the aclu 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Remek 771 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) ^^^ contrary to most, I USED to love the ACLU. They defended everyone, no matter what. And, in doing so, they helped maintain the rights of all. But when people make judgement calls as to who should be defended (e.g., tree hugging hippies) and who should not (e.g., lawful gun owners), they only make it easier for our rights to errode. EDIT: So, YES, I hate the ACLU, but I used to love them. Scorned lover LOL! Edited April 21, 2013 by Remek 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jwulf 179 Posted April 21, 2013 Author Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 not sure if this video got posted before or not... interesting... A retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army weighs in on Boston.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWUB4MCLsHg Quote Link to post Share on other sites
netstorm 90 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 not sure if this video got posted before or not... interesting... A retired Lieutenant Colonel in the Army weighs in on Boston.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWUB4MCLsHg Thanks for the video, interesting stuff. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Bayoupiper 738 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 Seems the liberal states just let them do what they want. I would hope the conservative states would have a problem with them going in without warrants. This!!! Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunman1 1,753 Posted April 21, 2013 Report Share Posted April 21, 2013 False flag???? Now this is some spooky shit right here. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jdub23 21 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) Yeah, I'm sure that all those officers and those in charge of them were thinking the whole time, "Even though we're chasing a homicidal maniac with bombs, grenades, and guns... we should glean what we can from this experience so we can infringe on the rights of American citizens, later!" I can guarantee you that not one of those officers desires to be back in that same situation, going through houses and back yards checking every corner for anything short of a deadly and immediate threat to the public. Well, being that they were actively looking for the bomber, I wouldn't say it was practice, I'd say that this is what they have been practicing for. Exactly... how some of you let your Obama hate cloud all reasonable perspective blows my mind. Your trying to be so smug and intelligent. Only your making excuses and agreeing that those Citizens had no rights and the Constitustion is an old piece of paper b/c there was an incident involving weopons. Yes, why the next time I experience a local catastophe I should strip my clothes off and lay face down and spread my butt cheeks. Because I wouldn't want to hinder law inforcement with my Constitutional rights. Edited April 22, 2013 by jdub23 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Big John! 2,062 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 Yeah, I'm sure that all those officers and those in charge of them were thinking the whole time, "Even though we're chasing a homicidal maniac with bombs, grenades, and guns... we should glean what we can from this experience so we can infringe on the rights of American citizens, later!" I can guarantee you that not one of those officers desires to be back in that same situation, going through houses and back yards checking every corner for anything short of a deadly and immediate threat to the public. Well, being that they were actively looking for the bomber, I wouldn't say it was practice, I'd say that this is what they have been practicing for. Exactly... how some of you let your Obama hate cloud all reasonable perspective blows my mind. Your trying to be so smug and intelligent. Only your making excuses and agreeing that those Citizens had no rights and the Constitustion is an old piece of paper b/c there was an incident involving weopons. Yes, why the next time I experience a local catastophe I should strip my clothes off and lay face down and spread my butt cheeks. Because I wouldn't want to hinder law inforcement with my Constitutional rights. Haha… Good call... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 Yeah, I'm sure that all those officers and those in charge of them were thinking the whole time, "Even though we're chasing a homicidal maniac with bombs, grenades, and guns... we should glean what we can from this experience so we can infringe on the rights of American citizens, later!" I can guarantee you that not one of those officers desires to be back in that same situation, going through houses and back yards checking every corner for anything short of a deadly and immediate threat to the public. Who said the grunts were gleaning what they could from the situation? The people in charge would be doing it, not the grunts. The cops weren't thinking about violating rights. That's the problem. They're being trained. Just like you train a dog to attack on command. And the dogs that won't learn to attack without thought, who actually question if it's the right thing, they get put on traffic duty or a desk job. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Sdustin 578 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 Darth Saigus is right on. This is all getting ready. Like it or not they were doing some fucked up shut and the guy is a US citizen and I think he should be treated as such. Not a fucking enemy combatant, as republicans have said. I actually thing old cuntstein is talking sense on this one. Thats the one thing we have in common with the left they want all right just not they ones that keep us armed. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
BuffetDestroyer 969 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) If something like this happened in my neighborhood, I would happily cooperate with LEO's and give any information I had and let them search the exterior of my property to bring those murdering fucks to justice. There is a difference between searching your back yard and doing warrantless forced-entry room sweeps with your family inside your house. If those bombers were hiding on your property without you knowing it, you are saying you would you prefer to give safe harbor to the terrorists (which is a crime) instead of having a police officer look around and possibly find them hiding in you boat or back shed? I agree there is a slippery slope here, but the cops were looking for suspects of a horrendous crime, not to persecute and prosecute innocent people because they are simply exercising their Constitutional rights. Edited April 22, 2013 by BuffetDestroyer Quote Link to post Share on other sites
XD45 7,124 Posted April 22, 2013 Report Share Posted April 22, 2013 If something like this happened in my neighborhood, I would happily cooperate with LEO's and give any information I had and let them search the exterior of my property to bring those murdering fucks to justice. There is a difference between searching your back yard and doing warrantless forced-entry room sweeps with your family inside your house. If those bombers were hiding on your property without you knowing it, you are saying you would you prefer to give safe harbor to the terrorists (which is a crime) instead of having a police officer look around and possibly find them hiding in you boat or back shed? I agree there is a slippery slope here, but the cops were looking for suspects of a horrendous crime, not to persecute and prosecute innocent people because they are simply exercising their Constitutional rights. You don't seem to know what point you're trying to make. You say you would let them search the exterior of your property. Then you say that it's wrong to do a warrantless forced-entry search of the house. Then you insinuate that those who believe they violated constitutional rights would prefer to harbor terrorists. Then you say it's a slippery slope. You are arguing both sides, and the middle. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.