Posted on 04/23/2013 5:46:29 AM PDT by Uncle Chip
Wow. Who knew? Infowars is right wing now?
I remember the day this happened because I was outside doing some yardwork when my neighbor came out and told me, "Yeah .. it just happened" .. and I came inside to vegetate the rest of the day in front of the computer.
The first thing I saw was the Globe video of the finish line explosions and I was immediately transformed back to 1968 when in the middle of a night-time demonstration (Yup .. native Bostonian .. it was in Boston .. ) and someone set off an M-80 (fireworks) ... absolute panic.
Now .. what I'm saying is ... in the absence of intell or information that directs our thoughts, we're pretty much on survival instinct as to what we do.
Now to tie this in with the police search(es) .. (I've only watched that one video) .. We get our information in the comfort of our homes drinking coffee with the dog or cat demanding attention, not out in the street.
If I suspected (almost all initial "evidence" demands the forensic minded to be analytically "suspicious") a dangerous person next door ... (or perhaps none of those kids were actually watching TV but re-spinning Abbey Road, drinking wine and passing a dooby) .. I would want someone to warn me.
Was the search and demand overmuch? Prob ably ... but we have the advantage of hindsight to assist in our thought processes, and these guys probably expected a fight of some kind.
With all the prepper talk here in FR ... is any one of us not prepared to take a stand and fight?
While in that stance, are we aware of every bit of intell available or are we standing in front of our homes and staring at the BATF in our driveway?
WHAT are we gonn'a do and when will we do it?
There's a lot more going on here than this video .. disturbing as it may seem.
I was in that thread too. Unfortunately, I have begun to feel the same way. Some of the posts defy logic, and are not characteristic of a person who embraces liberty, property rights, or the Constitution as the law of the land.
If it was a new account I would be certain it was someone who had come from the outside to try to influence opinion in favor of the State.
I wonder how many FReepers will STILL defend the over-the-top actions by LEO in Boston while searching for this 19 year old. I knew it was going overboard when I heard they had instituted a no-fly zone.
The 4th amendment of the US Constitution....unless the liberal sheep up in watertown all gave consent to search, which wouldn't surprise me.
I look forward to them trying that below the mason-dixon...some of us down here still believe we have Constitutional rights.
I found that ironic, also! lol
Right after I posted the comment on this thread I read about five down and there he was writing the same junk about all the people cheering the cops.
Uneducated (re public (Socialist) school educated) peopel around the world cheer their Communist/Socialist masters all the time. They do not know any better but we are a free and sovereign people. We are supposed to know better. They should be asking for the heads of every one of those cops rather than thanking them for invading their homes.
A "zombie apocalypse" exercise set for Tuesday is designed to make students in the Ann Arbor university's School of Public Health contemplate likely scenarios in disasters and the appropriate response.
The exercise is modeled after a curriculum designed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. It's to include students dressing up as the undead.
If you look at the video you will see a square patch (dark lines) on the port side of the boat on the tarp. This is an access door for the tarp. I don’t know but I assume the boat owner may have noticed straps to the access door was cut.
Our little lefty friends sure are lucky.
Just over a month ago the ACLU was railing against the “militarization” of the police and their use of military style weapons.
Now this takes place and I don’t hear anything out of the ACLU, it’s only us wacko “right wing extremist” that seem to have a problem with the militarization of the police.
Yea our little lefty friends are damn lucky, they always seem to have their talking points in place before something happens.
ACLU wasn’t the only lefty group that was lucky with their statements before this attack.
CPUSA was advocating the illegals should take their struggle to the street.
SPLC and their report and how right wing extremist are the real threat.
Eric Holder apparently had an LSD flashback and returned to the talking points from 2004 to gin up civil unrest with Blacks are spending too much time in prison for the crimes they are committing.
We’ve all seen how Zippo’s WH has been ginning up civil unrest with Whites.
Our little lefty friends talking points before the attack had created a motive for this attack from three separate groups, Whites, Blacks, and Hispanics.
Yea the left is damn lucky with their talking points before terrorist attacks.
That "terrorist" would be dead meat if he showed his face around any one of the homes in my neighborhood. There would be guys with cell phones, dogs, and guns just waiting to make his day rather unpleasant. One of us is an ex-cop and former Army Ranger.
This was the epitome of an unreasonable search process. If the police had a blood trail, or had a report of the perp entering a particular house, that would be "hot pursuit" justifying a warrantless and potentially a forcible entry. This was not. They had no legal or moral grounds for the search they conducted. It was a terrible precedent, and forbodes for much worse to come should the people find this tolerable, much less laudatory.
Worse, and despite the public accolades, that search method was COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. Just as the DC sniper case, which also violated the Constitutional rights of the people with COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE warrantless searches of their cars, it was a citizen who found the perp, and not the police.
This kind of "You get out of the way and let the professionals handle it; we'll get 'em, no matter what," policy is simply not worth the cost. It trains the police to operate on a hair trigger. It teaches the police that the houses and property of citizens are not to be held sacred. It places the arms and security of the people at risk. It damages property. It costs such a fortune to equip and maintain these SWAT teams that cities and counties are breaking under the retirement costs. It is exactly the "civilian national security force" Obama touted to cheering Democrats. Apparently you think it's a great idea too.
This state of affairs would be an anathema to the founders, who saw THE PEOPLE as the primary source of law enforcement. Militarized police, equipped as you saw in the video, IS equivalent to what the Founders feared in a standing army. It is why we have the Fourth Amendment they ignored completely in the name of "officer safety."
Nor is this some "unprecedented situation" by virtue of new technology. Hell, people used to be able to buy dynamite at the local hardware store 100 years ago. So to imply that the mere fact that these two were crazy Islamists with bombs somehow makes things any different would be an implication without merit. There is nothing new here.
Hence, by the condescension and contempt in your post for conservatives who see this action for what it was, AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, yours argument descends to an 'ends justifies means' position, the kind of justification used by every tyrant in history. I suggest you read Aristotle's Ethics, as over two thousand years ago he taught what should be known today in every grade school: 'No one selects "an end" unless it is a means to something else. There are no "ends;" there are only means.'
What is with this thread? It only shows the first few posts and truncates, no matter how I access or refresh it.
That "terrorist" would be dead meat if he showed his face around any one of the homes in my neighborhood. There would be guys with cell phones, dogs, and guns just waiting to make his day rather unpleasant. One of us is an ex-cop and former Army Ranger.
This was the epitome of an unreasonable search process. If the police had a blood trail, or had a report of the perp entering a particular house, that would be "hot pursuit" justifying a warrantless and potentially a forcible entry. This was not. They had no legal or moral grounds for the search they conducted. It was a terrible precedent, and forbodes for much worse to come should the people find this tolerable, much less laudatory.
Worse, and despite the public accolades, that search method was COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. Just as the DC sniper case, which also violated the Constitutional rights of the people with COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE warrantless searches of their cars, it was a citizen who found the perp, and not the police.
This kind of "You get out of the way and let the professionals handle it; we'll get 'em, no matter what," policy is simply not worth the cost. It trains the police to operate on a hair trigger. It teaches the police that the houses and property of citizens are not to be held sacred. It places the arms and security of the people at risk. It damages property. It costs such a fortune to equip and maintain these SWAT teams that cities and counties are breaking under the retirement costs. It is exactly the "civilian national security force" Obama touted to cheering Democrats. Apparently you think it's a great idea too.
This state of affairs would be an anathema to the founders, who saw THE PEOPLE as the primary source of law enforcement. Militarized police, equipped as you saw in the video, IS equivalent to what the Founders feared in a standing army. It is why we have the Fourth Amendment they ignored completely in the name of "officer safety."
Nor is this some "unprecedented situation" by virtue of new technology. Hell, people used to be able to buy dynamite at the local hardware store 100 years ago. So to imply that the mere fact that these two were crazy Islamists with bombs somehow makes things any different would be an implication without merit. There is nothing new here.
Hence, by the condescension and contempt in your post for conservatives who see this action for what it was, AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, yours argument descends to an 'ends justifies means' position, the kind of justification used by every tyrant in history. I suggest you read Aristotle's Ethics, as over two thousand years ago he taught what should be known today in every grade school: 'No one selects "an end" unless it is a means to something else. There are no "ends;" there are only means.'
I’m having the same problem...
I noticed the same thing. And it appears on other threads as well. It may be a server issue.
We’re just teaching the terrorists that we are willing to give up the 4th. That will also make it easier to go after the 2nd since illegal searches will turn up illegal large magazines and the ACLU by their own admission won’t defend those cases.
I think it's the other way around: They're teaching us that we are willing to give up our rights for the appearance of "security." Ironic, isn't it, that the Fourth Amendment specifically mentions security as its purpose.
Well now everybody knows what martial law looks like. And its not pretty.
Apparently it is a glitch in the system that comes and goes.
John is working on it so it will eventually be banned from Free Republic.
I have to disagree with EV on this issue. I read his explanation that these searches were covered by the exigent exception to the 4th Amendment. I disagree, but I admit there are certain cases where police have a right to pursue a felon onto my private property, like if they’re in hot pursuit. So we’re not talking about a black and white situation. Judgement is involved.
That said, I think it’s pretty clear the police went too far in this case, but I’m still waiting for further details to come out. For example, what happened (or would have happened) to someone who declined to comply with the search? I’m also bothered by the way the police treated lawful citizens during the search. Women and children hardly matched the fugitive’s description and clearly didn’t deserve to have guns thrust in their faces.
If the police reasonably thought the terrorist was in a particular house, then they’d have the right to aggressively search that house and take precautions to protect themselves. However, I don’t see how one could reasonably claim a 20 block area of houses legitimately qualified as a legitimate, immediate threat to the police.
Unfortunately, government has all the power and money to do whatever it wants, and innocent civilians wisely comply, even when their rights are threatened, when they face deadly force. Even if someone challenges this, it will probably take decades to work its way through the courts (which are being stacked by statists).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.