i gotta say there is some unreal debating going on in this here thread. confusion has set in. do not be the guy looking for some kind of bullshit sympathy or whatever it is. do not be the guy who cannot admit they are wrong. admitting you are wrong take only a moment & then you move forward. simple shit. admitting to one's misunderstanding of the way things work, admitting to one's mistakes, admitting to simply being an ass,
admitting your weaknesses, admitting you may not be the smartest, fastest, quickest & the sharpest tool in the tool bucket is physically & mentally good for us all.
many comical comments in this thread. i see a great deal of comedic genius here. i also see a lot of bullshit & hot air. get your fucking acts together. do not make me come over there
After a couple hours of internet research, I have found that in most cases that the death penalty is more expensive than life in prison. Therefore, I admit that I was wrong and will impose a much needed one day ban on the train.
you're the best we got, general! please bobby, please do not go ahead with the banning
What scares me is the people cheering for military occupation of the streets.
It only took one citizen that was paying attention to capture this guy.
Yah. No dragnet at work forcing the guy into a weak hiding spot from a really slim selection. Unsung... it was only a short matter of time before the authorities, using their extremely effective tactics, were going to apprehend this loser.
Just think... this is one of the 'brighter' voices insisting on the right to bear arms and opposing any gun control measures.
I've said it once before and I'm going to say it again... the inmates are running the asylum.
so are you willing to sacrifice more innocent lives in the name of liberty??
Seriously, yes. Sometimes that's the price of liberty.
Wow. You would sacrifice another bomb going off and more people dying to keep people from being inconvenianced? You need a 'control-alt-delete'.
:thumbup:
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
so are you willing to sacrifice more innocent lives in the name of liberty??
Seriously, yes. Sometimes that's the price of liberty.
Wow. You would sacrifice another bomb going off and more people dying to keep people from being inconvenianced? You need a 'control-alt-delete'.
Locking down an entire city and in some cases being hulled out of your house at gunpoint is not my definition of inconvenienced.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument here but I truly believe we are giving far to many powers to the police, and after what they did in Boston I feel they will try to take more. The police becoming more militarized worries me, and the fact that it doesn't seem to give you pause worries me even more.
so are you willing to sacrifice more innocent lives in the name of liberty??
Seriously, yes. Sometimes that's the price of liberty.
to me, that sounds like the mantra of an extremist.
Go back and look at anything I have posted on this forum. I am far from an extremest on anything. Maybe I could have used a better phrase like "Unfortunately" that's the price of liberty.
Saying I sound like an extremist is over the top and over-dramatic and adds nothing to this debate.
You are not rebutting ofthegirl99's point with that clip. The point being discussed was what happened in Watertown and the extremists who are vilifying the police and national guard and believe they should have done...well, what they think should have been done remains unclear.
At least some this morning are being honest enough to admit they do believe we should have just let more people die in Watertown. I believe that is insane, but at least now the logic is being followed through to its endpoint. Those are the people ofthegirl99 was referring to and why I applauded.
to me, that sounds like the mantra of an extremist.
Go back and look at anything I have posted on this forum. I am far from an extremest on anything. Maybe I could have used a better phrase like "Unfortunately" that's the price of liberty.
Saying I sound like an extremist is over the top and over-dramatic and adds nothing to this debate.
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is not a debate. To me, this is more a case of some people grounded in common sense responding to the musings of a few highly paranoid conspiracists.
But hundreds of pages on this forum tell me there is no talking sense to some. There's no talking my sense to you as there is no talking your sense to me. So... here's what I offer you: if a takeover occurs... I'll eat my words and play the fool until the end. We will give you to the final, peaceful moments of hopefully a long and lovely life: if on this peaceful day of reckoning you look back at your life and realize there never was any intent for a government takeover... how about you come to terms with how you lived? No face palm necessary!
What scares me is the people cheering for military occupation of the streets.
It only took one citizen that was paying attention to capture this guy.
unsung...This is the best comment in the entire thread.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
Without question, Watertown, MA was a police state for a day.
Somehow I think Benjamin Franklin would have used a bit of common sense If a crazed bomber would have been around when he made this quote......
I wonder the same. We often ignore the context in which many of our founding fathers existed and apply those principles to our current situations without taking their situations into account when quoting them. Sometimes the context fits, other times not so much.
Are we getting something out of this all-encompassing trip?
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
But for what it's worth: the Constitution is important, and it's meaning and import has evolved into so much more than just a "200 year old document." The discussion should not be then a "200 year old document" vs. "Common Sense." The two don't have to be exclusive of one another. In fact, considerable case law has been developed by the Supreme Court addressing the very issue of how the Constitution applies to modern situations (yes, even Scalia's done it); in short, the document has been interpreted to adapt to modern situations (as it should be).
So the Constitution is as viable as it's ever been.
Now, does that mean it's been abused here? I don't know. What are the complaints being lodged here in this thread?
That Boston police used humvees or weapons or tanks or whatever to track down a bombing suspect? Ok...don't most of you anti-government types (yes, you're a type) support the right to bear arms?
That people were told they couldn't leave their homes? Ok...where are the citizens who are complaining? To file a suit, claiming some unwarranted deprivation of Constitutional rights, there has to actually be an injury or harm. Last I checked, most people willingly stayed in doors while cops chased down a bombing suspect who had also killed a cop. If someone is pissed off and thinks their rights were violated then they need to file a lawsuit, and convince a court that their rights were violated under the existing circumstances of April 15, 16, 17, and 18. Good luck.
Is it because police entered homes without a warrant? Sure, the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Key word: unreasonable. Case law has interpreted this to mean that there are situations where warrantless searches ARE reasonable and therefore fine under the Constitution. Those are called warrant exceptions. One of them is the exigent circumstances exception. It means that under certain situations, police may search or seize someone without a warrant. Like, say, a house to house gun fight with a suspected terrorist.
There are some facts I'm probably missing, because I haven't really given any credence to the idea that the police somehow violated people's rights when they were attempting to apprehend this guy. I think most of the arguing is about the aesthetics of the situation: the image of police with military-style weapons or tanks in city streets, out of context, is not pleasing aesthetically to most people. Put it in the context that I've described above (a house to house gun fight with a cop killer and a suspected bomber): it's only unappealing to people with an ax to grind.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing this thread popping up in my posts, and reading it to find that some new weird unsupported conspiracy has been leveled. Sure, there are police officers who abuse their discretion and violate the law all the time. I'm not convinced that's the case here. At all, in fact.
Before, my only point in all this had only been: Calm down with the bloodlust before this guy's been convicted. But now I add: Quit using a tragedy to continue your ridiculous tirades against "big government."
Can we move on with the process?
1998-06-30 Minneapolis
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2 2018-06-18 London 1 2018-08-18 Wrigley 1 2018-08-20 Wrigley 2 2022-09-16 Nashville 2023-08-31 St. Paul 2023-09-02 St. Paul 2023-09-05 Chicago 1 2023-08-31 Wrigley 2 2023-09-15 Fenway 1
But for what it's worth: the Constitution is important, and it's meaning and import has evolved into so much more than just a "200 year old document." The discussion should not be then a "200 year old document" vs. "Common Sense." The two don't have to be exclusive of one another. In fact, considerable case law has been developed by the Supreme Court addressing the very issue of how the Constitution applies to modern situations (yes, even Scalia's done it); in short, the document has been interpreted to adapt to modern situations (as it should be).
So the Constitution is as viable as it's ever been.
Now, does that mean it's been abused here? I don't know. What are the complaints being lodged here in this thread?
That Boston police used humvees or weapons or tanks or whatever to track down a bombing suspect? Ok...don't most of you anti-government types (yes, you're a type) support the right to bear arms?
That people were told they couldn't leave their homes? Ok...where are the citizens who are complaining? To file a suit, claiming some unwarranted deprivation of Constitutional rights, there has to actually be an injury or harm. Last I checked, most people willingly stayed in doors while cops chased down a bombing suspect who had also killed a cop. If someone is pissed off and thinks their rights were violated then they need to file a lawsuit, and convince a court that their rights were violated under the existing circumstances of April 15, 16, 17, and 18. Good luck.
Is it because police entered homes without a warrant? Sure, the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Key word: unreasonable. Case law has interpreted this to mean that there are situations where warrantless searches ARE reasonable and therefore fine under the Constitution. Those are called warrant exceptions. One of them is the exigent circumstances exception. It means that under certain situations, police may search or seize someone without a warrant. Like, say, a house to house gun fight with a suspected terrorist.
There are some facts I'm probably missing, because I haven't really given any credence to the idea that the police somehow violated people's rights when they were attempting to apprehend this guy. I think most of the arguing is about the aesthetics of the situation: the image of police with military-style weapons or tanks in city streets, out of context, is not pleasing aesthetically to most people. Put it in the context that I've described above (a house to house gun fight with a cop killer and a suspected bomber): it's only unappealing to people with an ax to grind.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing this thread popping up in my posts, and reading it to find that some new weird unsupported conspiracy has been leveled. Sure, there are police officers who abuse their discretion and violate the law all the time. I'm not convinced that's the case here. At all, in fact.
Before, my only point in all this had only been: Calm down with the bloodlust before this guy's been convicted. But now I add: Quit using a tragedy to continue your ridiculous tirades against "big government."
Can we move on with the process?
This is what's commonly referred to as a beatdown.
It's over. Conspiracists might do best chatting via private messages lest they look foolish from here on.
But for what it's worth: the Constitution is important, and it's meaning and import has evolved into so much more than just a "200 year old document." The discussion should not be then a "200 year old document" vs. "Common Sense." The two don't have to be exclusive of one another. In fact, considerable case law has been developed by the Supreme Court addressing the very issue of how the Constitution applies to modern situations (yes, even Scalia's done it); in short, the document has been interpreted to adapt to modern situations (as it should be).
So the Constitution is as viable as it's ever been.
Now, does that mean it's been abused here? I don't know. What are the complaints being lodged here in this thread?
That Boston police used humvees or weapons or tanks or whatever to track down a bombing suspect? Ok...don't most of you anti-government types (yes, you're a type) support the right to bear arms?
That people were told they couldn't leave their homes? Ok...where are the citizens who are complaining? To file a suit, claiming some unwarranted deprivation of Constitutional rights, there has to actually be an injury or harm. Last I checked, most people willingly stayed in doors while cops chased down a bombing suspect who had also killed a cop. If someone is pissed off and thinks their rights were violated then they need to file a lawsuit, and convince a court that their rights were violated under the existing circumstances of April 15, 16, 17, and 18. Good luck.
Is it because police entered homes without a warrant? Sure, the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Key word: unreasonable. Case law has interpreted this to mean that there are situations where warrantless searches ARE reasonable and therefore fine under the Constitution. Those are called warrant exceptions. One of them is the exigent circumstances exception. It means that under certain situations, police may search or seize someone without a warrant. Like, say, a house to house gun fight with a suspected terrorist.
There are some facts I'm probably missing, because I haven't really given any credence to the idea that the police somehow violated people's rights when they were attempting to apprehend this guy. I think most of the arguing is about the aesthetics of the situation: the image of police with military-style weapons or tanks in city streets, out of context, is not pleasing aesthetically to most people. Put it in the context that I've described above (a house to house gun fight with a cop killer and a suspected bomber): it's only unappealing to people with an ax to grind.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing this thread popping up in my posts, and reading it to find that some new weird unsupported conspiracy has been leveled. Sure, there are police officers who abuse their discretion and violate the law all the time. I'm not convinced that's the case here. At all, in fact.
Before, my only point in all this had only been: Calm down with the bloodlust before this guy's been convicted. But now I add: Quit using a tragedy to continue your ridiculous tirades against "big government."
Can we move on with the process?
Gimli 1993
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
But for what it's worth: the Constitution is important, and it's meaning and import has evolved into so much more than just a "200 year old document." The discussion should not be then a "200 year old document" vs. "Common Sense." The two don't have to be exclusive of one another. In fact, considerable case law has been developed by the Supreme Court addressing the very issue of how the Constitution applies to modern situations (yes, even Scalia's done it); in short, the document has been interpreted to adapt to modern situations (as it should be).
So the Constitution is as viable as it's ever been.
Now, does that mean it's been abused here? I don't know. What are the complaints being lodged here in this thread?
That Boston police used humvees or weapons or tanks or whatever to track down a bombing suspect? Ok...don't most of you anti-government types (yes, you're a type) support the right to bear arms?
That people were told they couldn't leave their homes? Ok...where are the citizens who are complaining? To file a suit, claiming some unwarranted deprivation of Constitutional rights, there has to actually be an injury or harm. Last I checked, most people willingly stayed in doors while cops chased down a bombing suspect who had also killed a cop. If someone is pissed off and thinks their rights were violated then they need to file a lawsuit, and convince a court that their rights were violated under the existing circumstances of April 15, 16, 17, and 18. Good luck.
Is it because police entered homes without a warrant? Sure, the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Key word: unreasonable. Case law has interpreted this to mean that there are situations where warrantless searches ARE reasonable and therefore fine under the Constitution. Those are called warrant exceptions. One of them is the exigent circumstances exception. It means that under certain situations, police may search or seize someone without a warrant. Like, say, a house to house gun fight with a suspected terrorist.
There are some facts I'm probably missing, because I haven't really given any credence to the idea that the police somehow violated people's rights when they were attempting to apprehend this guy. I think most of the arguing is about the aesthetics of the situation: the image of police with military-style weapons or tanks in city streets, out of context, is not pleasing aesthetically to most people. Put it in the context that I've described above (a house to house gun fight with a cop killer and a suspected bomber): it's only unappealing to people with an ax to grind.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing this thread popping up in my posts, and reading it to find that some new weird unsupported conspiracy has been leveled. Sure, there are police officers who abuse their discretion and violate the law all the time. I'm not convinced that's the case here. At all, in fact.
Before, my only point in all this had only been: Calm down with the bloodlust before this guy's been convicted. But now I add: Quit using a tragedy to continue your ridiculous tirades against "big government."
Can we move on with the process?
Nailed it...well done Sir.... :thumbup:
"...Dimitri...He talks to me...'.."The Ghost of Greece..".
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
“How to Make a Bomb in the Kitchen of Your Mom,” an article in the first issue of the English-language magazine. At least one of the Watertown bombs used an elbow pipe wrapped in black tape, as discussed in “Inspire.”
so are you willing to sacrifice more innocent lives in the name of liberty??
That is a loaded and unfair question. there does not have to be more innocent lives sacrificed in the name of liberty because NONE OF THOSE WHO DIED were sacrificed in the name of liberty. They were murdered, and not for liberty.
What happens if keeping people in their homes who would have normally left the area because of the danger that was perceived were killed by a bomb blast? Does that mean that those in favor of the police locking down the area were willing to sacrifice people in the name of safety? Of course not.
Freedom is inherently dangerous, you can harm yourself with it, you could harm others with it...it is dangerous.
I have already said in this thread earlier that I think the police, barring maybe a few incidents, acted with probable cause to do what they did. However, that doesn't excuse this type of argument. There are millions of people around the world who HAVE sacrificed their own lives for liberty and I am sure a large percentage would do it again.
People who hide behind a 200 year old piece of paper and don't use their fucking heads and common sense are a huge problem in our country. HUGE!
that document has done more for the safety and well being of the people in this country than it EVER has done damage to. No one hides behind it...and the 200 year old document has a process to change and to review and interpret it...We rely on the 9 to interpret the document properly and I think they do a helluva job with probably the most thankless Gov't role. I think those who believe you can skirt the constitutional process and protections are a HUGE problem in this country(Blue or Red doesn't matter to me). HUGE!
But like was said a few posts ago, I think most people living in that area felt like the actions of the police were reasonable, and I also think that most judicial review of 99.9% of the police action on that day would find the same thing.
that’s right! Can’t we all just get together and focus on our real enemies: monogamous gays and stem cells… - Ned Flanders
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
What happens if keeping people in their homes who would have normally left the area because of the danger that was perceived were killed by a bomb blast? Does that mean that those in favor of the police locking down the area were willing to sacrifice people in the name of safety? Of course not.
But like was said a few posts ago, I think most people living in that area felt like the actions of the police were reasonable, and I also think that most judicial review of 99.9% of the police action on that day would find the same thing.
As one who is completely in favor of the actions and strategies employed by the police, the first comment is- at a minimum- fair and worthy of some consideration.
The second comment speaks to the 'common sense' aspect of the whole ordeal. At least on this occasion... celebrate the work of the police who risked their lives getting this task done (some paid with their life). It would have to be a different, much much more benign stuation for anyone to take any suggestion of a threat to the constituion seriously.
The mother of the men who bombed the Boston Marathon was placed on a US terror watch list 18 months before the attack — and is now being eyed for potentially radicalizing her oldest son, officials said yesterday.
Zubeidat Tsarnaeva and her now-dead son, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were put on the list in 2011 after Russian officials informed the CIA that the two ethnic Chechens were Islamic extremists who may pose a threat to their native Russia, officials said.
Officials have disclosed that Tamerlan’s name was listed, raising questions about whether authorities should have eyed him more closely before the April 15 attack that killed three and injured 260.
The mother of the men who bombed the Boston Marathon was placed on a US terror watch list 18 months before the attack — and is now being eyed for potentially radicalizing her oldest son, officials said yesterday.
Zubeidat Tsarnaeva and her now-dead son, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were put on the list in 2011 after Russian officials informed the CIA that the two ethnic Chechens were Islamic extremists who may pose a threat to their native Russia, officials said.
Officials have disclosed that Tamerlan’s name was listed, raising questions about whether authorities should have eyed him more closely before the April 15 attack that killed three and injured 260.
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say Russian authorities secretly recorded a conversation in 2011 in which one of the Boston bombing suspects vaguely discussed jihad with his mother.
Officials say a second call was recorded between the suspects’ mother and a man under FBI investigation living in southern Russia.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing case.
They say the Russians shared this intelligence with the U.S. in the past few days.
The conversations are significant because, had they been revealed earlier, there might have been enough evidence for the FBI to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Boston bombing suspects’ family.
Comments
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
Yah. No dragnet at work forcing the guy into a weak hiding spot from a really slim selection. Unsung... it was only a short matter of time before the authorities, using their extremely effective tactics, were going to apprehend this loser.
Just think... this is one of the 'brighter' voices insisting on the right to bear arms and opposing any gun control measures.
I've said it once before and I'm going to say it again... the inmates are running the asylum.
unsung...This is the best comment in the entire thread.
“Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ~Benjamin Franklin
Without question, Watertown, MA was a police state for a day.
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/0 ... aign=sm_tw
so are you willing to sacrifice more innocent lives in the name of liberty??
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Seriously, yes. Sometimes that's the price of liberty.
to me, that sounds like the mantra of an extremist.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Wow. You would sacrifice another bomb going off and more people dying to keep people from being inconvenianced? You need a 'control-alt-delete'.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-a ... ershare_fb
Locking down an entire city and in some cases being hulled out of your house at gunpoint is not my definition of inconvenienced.
I hate to use the slippery slope argument here but I truly believe we are giving far to many powers to the police, and after what they did in Boston I feel they will try to take more. The police becoming more militarized worries me, and the fact that it doesn't seem to give you pause worries me even more.
Go back and look at anything I have posted on this forum. I am far from an extremest on anything. Maybe I could have used a better phrase like "Unfortunately" that's the price of liberty.
Saying I sound like an extremist is over the top and over-dramatic and adds nothing to this debate.
You are not rebutting ofthegirl99's point with that clip. The point being discussed was what happened in Watertown and the extremists who are vilifying the police and national guard and believe they should have done...well, what they think should have been done remains unclear.
At least some this morning are being honest enough to admit they do believe we should have just let more people die in Watertown. I believe that is insane, but at least now the logic is being followed through to its endpoint. Those are the people ofthegirl99 was referring to and why I applauded.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I'm not trying to be a jerk, but this is not a debate. To me, this is more a case of some people grounded in common sense responding to the musings of a few highly paranoid conspiracists.
But hundreds of pages on this forum tell me there is no talking sense to some. There's no talking my sense to you as there is no talking your sense to me. So... here's what I offer you: if a takeover occurs... I'll eat my words and play the fool until the end. We will give you to the final, peaceful moments of hopefully a long and lovely life: if on this peaceful day of reckoning you look back at your life and realize there never was any intent for a government takeover... how about you come to terms with how you lived? No face palm necessary!
Somehow I think Benjamin Franklin would have used a bit of common sense If a crazed bomber would have been around when he made this quote......
I wonder the same. We often ignore the context in which many of our founding fathers existed and apply those principles to our current situations without taking their situations into account when quoting them. Sometimes the context fits, other times not so much.
Seems my preconceptions are what should have been burned...
I AM MINE
But for what it's worth: the Constitution is important, and it's meaning and import has evolved into so much more than just a "200 year old document." The discussion should not be then a "200 year old document" vs. "Common Sense." The two don't have to be exclusive of one another. In fact, considerable case law has been developed by the Supreme Court addressing the very issue of how the Constitution applies to modern situations (yes, even Scalia's done it); in short, the document has been interpreted to adapt to modern situations (as it should be).
So the Constitution is as viable as it's ever been.
Now, does that mean it's been abused here? I don't know. What are the complaints being lodged here in this thread?
That Boston police used humvees or weapons or tanks or whatever to track down a bombing suspect? Ok...don't most of you anti-government types (yes, you're a type) support the right to bear arms?
That people were told they couldn't leave their homes? Ok...where are the citizens who are complaining? To file a suit, claiming some unwarranted deprivation of Constitutional rights, there has to actually be an injury or harm. Last I checked, most people willingly stayed in doors while cops chased down a bombing suspect who had also killed a cop. If someone is pissed off and thinks their rights were violated then they need to file a lawsuit, and convince a court that their rights were violated under the existing circumstances of April 15, 16, 17, and 18. Good luck.
Is it because police entered homes without a warrant? Sure, the Constitution protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Key word: unreasonable. Case law has interpreted this to mean that there are situations where warrantless searches ARE reasonable and therefore fine under the Constitution. Those are called warrant exceptions. One of them is the exigent circumstances exception. It means that under certain situations, police may search or seize someone without a warrant. Like, say, a house to house gun fight with a suspected terrorist.
There are some facts I'm probably missing, because I haven't really given any credence to the idea that the police somehow violated people's rights when they were attempting to apprehend this guy. I think most of the arguing is about the aesthetics of the situation: the image of police with military-style weapons or tanks in city streets, out of context, is not pleasing aesthetically to most people. Put it in the context that I've described above (a house to house gun fight with a cop killer and a suspected bomber): it's only unappealing to people with an ax to grind.
Quite frankly, I'm sick of seeing this thread popping up in my posts, and reading it to find that some new weird unsupported conspiracy has been leveled. Sure, there are police officers who abuse their discretion and violate the law all the time. I'm not convinced that's the case here. At all, in fact.
Before, my only point in all this had only been: Calm down with the bloodlust before this guy's been convicted. But now I add: Quit using a tragedy to continue your ridiculous tirades against "big government."
Can we move on with the process?
2003-06-16 St. Paul
2006-06-26 St. Paul
2007-08-05 Chicago
2009-08-23 Chicago
2009-08-28 San Francisco
2010-05-01 NOLA (Jazz Fest)
2011-07-02 EV Minneapolis
2011-09-03 PJ20
2011-09-04 PJ20
2011-09-17 Winnipeg
2012-06-26 Amsterdam
2012-06-27 Amsterdam
2013-07-19 Wrigley
2013-11-21 San Diego
2013-11-23 Los Angeles
2013-11-24 Los Angeles
2014-07-08 Leeds, UK
2014-07-11 Milton Keynes, UK
2014-10-09 Lincoln
2014-10-19 St. Paul
2014-10-20 Milwaukee
2016-08-20 Wrigley 1
2016-08-22 Wrigley 2
2018-06-18 London 1
2018-08-18 Wrigley 1
2018-08-20 Wrigley 2
2022-09-16 Nashville
2023-08-31 St. Paul
2023-09-02 St. Paul
2023-09-05 Chicago 1
2023-08-31 Wrigley 2
2023-09-15 Fenway 1
This is what's commonly referred to as a beatdown.
It's over. Conspiracists might do best chatting via private messages lest they look foolish from here on.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
oh calm down. did I say you were an extremist? NO. I said that statement sounds like the mantra of an extremist, which I stand by.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/20 ... plans?lite
That is a loaded and unfair question. there does not have to be more innocent lives sacrificed in the name of liberty because NONE OF THOSE WHO DIED were sacrificed in the name of liberty. They were murdered, and not for liberty.
What happens if keeping people in their homes who would have normally left the area because of the danger that was perceived were killed by a bomb blast? Does that mean that those in favor of the police locking down the area were willing to sacrifice people in the name of safety? Of course not.
Freedom is inherently dangerous, you can harm yourself with it, you could harm others with it...it is dangerous.
I have already said in this thread earlier that I think the police, barring maybe a few incidents, acted with probable cause to do what they did. However, that doesn't excuse this type of argument. There are millions of people around the world who HAVE sacrificed their own lives for liberty and I am sure a large percentage would do it again.
that document has done more for the safety and well being of the people in this country than it EVER has done damage to. No one hides behind it...and the 200 year old document has a process to change and to review and interpret it...We rely on the 9 to interpret the document properly and I think they do a helluva job with probably the most thankless Gov't role. I think those who believe you can skirt the constitutional process and protections are a HUGE problem in this country(Blue or Red doesn't matter to me). HUGE!
But like was said a few posts ago, I think most people living in that area felt like the actions of the police were reasonable, and I also think that most judicial review of 99.9% of the police action on that day would find the same thing.
It is terrifying when you are too stupid to know who is dumb
- Joe Rogan
As one who is completely in favor of the actions and strategies employed by the police, the first comment is- at a minimum- fair and worthy of some consideration.
The second comment speaks to the 'common sense' aspect of the whole ordeal. At least on this occasion... celebrate the work of the police who risked their lives getting this task done (some paid with their life). It would have to be a different, much much more benign stuation for anyone to take any suggestion of a threat to the constituion seriously.
Zubeidat Tsarnaeva and her now-dead son, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, were put on the list in 2011 after Russian officials informed the CIA that the two ethnic Chechens were Islamic extremists who may pose a threat to their native Russia, officials said.
Officials have disclosed that Tamerlan’s name was listed, raising questions about whether authorities should have eyed him more closely before the April 15 attack that killed three and injured 260.
http://m.nypost.com/p/news/national/mad ... XoaOicRFxL
Stupid pig with her crocodile tears and her America did this my son bullshit.
"Hear me, my chiefs!
I am tired; my heart is
sick and sad. From where
the sun stands I will fight
no more forever."
Chief Joseph - Nez Perce
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. officials say Russian authorities secretly recorded a conversation in 2011 in which one of the Boston bombing suspects vaguely discussed jihad with his mother.
Officials say a second call was recorded between the suspects’ mother and a man under FBI investigation living in southern Russia.
The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly about the ongoing case.
They say the Russians shared this intelligence with the U.S. in the past few days.
The conversations are significant because, had they been revealed earlier, there might have been enough evidence for the FBI to initiate a more thorough investigation of the Boston bombing suspects’ family.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."