Posted on 04/30/2013 5:30:30 AM PDT by Biggirl
Former Rep. Ron Paul said the law enforcement that swarmed around Boston in the days following the marathon bombings was scarier than the actual terrorist attack.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
Hold an ax over Ron Paul’s legs and ask him which is scarier now you old fool?
I've always believed that we, the people, have immunity from that sort of thing here in the land of the free, with our Constitution protecting us like a shield and...oh yeah, because in God we trust.
How interesting and terrifying to have my first statement's question answered by the now mistaken belief in the permanence of my second statement.
Whether from a normalcy bias, historical ignorance or Satan's blinding hand covering our perceptions, we do not see the signs and are well on our way to becoming the organized evil we once overcame.
Consent must be given, either by saying yes or failing to say no, for anything found to be admissible in court. This includes drugs and drug paraphernalia. If there was nobody available to give consent then the police also violated constitutional rights unless they saw something very suspicious. A 19 year old pressure cooker bomber in anywhere from that location to New York City at that point is not reasonable suspicion.
Let us not forget FReepers: Even with this police and military presence, the unconstitutional searches, and private citizen lockdown, A PRIVATE CITIZEN CAUGHT THE TERRORIST!
Lots of Freepers have been saying pretty much the same thing, but now that Ron Paul said it I expect all heck to break out here.
The “state” just used the situation to practice “house to house” in an urban environment. They did not find the bomber. The bomber was found after the “state” finished its’ practicing, by a citizen who called 911.
So not having an address book for every house in Watertown is the hallmark of a “coward” to you, the keyboard commando.
That is what I figured.
The main thing to know with police if you think you are a suspect is ‘no’ and ‘I need to call my lawyer’, unless you are worried the terrorist is in your house.
It was reported on the news during the house to house, that if somebody would have refused, they had plans to attain warrants very quickly.
The reason was to ensure the terrorist wasn’t in the household, holding a hostage, say a child, with the parents lying to save the child.
I think it is pretty telling that not one person, protested and demanded a warrant.
People have a pretty good understanding of a serious and dangerous situation when their family is involved. And honestly, what would be the reason to deny entrance in a crisis situation where your family is in potentially serious danger?
There would be no good reason, except for general principle.
It speaks volumes that not one person protested or complained...except for people in the safety of their own homes with no skin in the game. Fearing fanciful delusions about a “police state”.
BUT - The Police HAVE TO HAVE PROBABLE CAUSE... Damn it ... Don’t you people understand ... Have you ever heard of ‘ ‘unreasonable searches and siezures’ or warrantless searches ... The police had only the authority to ASK at the door... They could ASK for entry ... not demand it at the point of a gun!!!
A cop just cannot say - we have a dangerous suspect in the neighbor and demand entry into your house - get out of your house - hands over your heads (FOR WHAT! because the perp was seen in the neighborhood . THAT IS NOT PROBABLE CAUSE .
HAving watched the tapes of cops forcing themselves into normal citizens’ homes, I agree with Paul (a rare event).
This shows what a disaster it is to have disarmed an entire city.
Some of you So Called Conservatives on this thread should get off FR - you are pseudo-Conservatives. I am aghast at the ignorance of the Constitution and Bill of Rights displayed here. Yes - RP said it stupidly - but is that any reason to deny the crux of what he said and what so many others are saying? I don’t like RP either - but I understand the truth.
You pseudo conservatives are DISGUSTING ... if this is your concept of Freedom under the Bill of Rights to say what the police did was Okay - then you are just IGNORANT and STUPID and it would seem Illiterate too since there is no evidence that you have read anything of pre Revolutionary History - the CAUSES for the Revolution...
Tragic Stupidness and Ignorance is all I can say about you pseudo Conservatives
The scenario that you suggest, the Constitutional scenario involving probable cause and a warrant, would have been the only way to have caught the terrorist. Obviously if the terrorist was holding somebody hostage, the hostage’s family would have to refuse entry! Otherwise the terrorist would be caught! How stupid! Terrorist: “I’m holding you’re son hostage to hide out in your home, so make sure the po-po searches this place well!”
Well said.
>> but how many Bostonians died or lost limbs at the hands of law enforcement officers during the manhunt?
They lost their liberties.
How many lives and limbs have been lost for the sake of liberty?
There are many here that would rather lose their lives than concede to the will of jack-booted authoritarianism.
The statism is strong among so-called Conservatives. And to paraphrase Ron Paul, “It’s scarier than the attack.”
Those were my points/thoughts too.
The ones complaining like Ron Paul and a very few here were far-far-away safely watching it on TV or internet and now they want to jump in and cry police state after the crisis is all over... and the search is over and the bad guys are caught.
They got no victims, all their 'victims' joined the so called ‘police state’. How can they have a police state complaint (that anyone will care about) without victims?
At least Dems are smart enought to make sure a few victims are willing to go on TV and complain about whatever.
All that's going on w Obama and congress and Syria and this is what they pick to complain about?
“Obviously if the terrorist was holding somebody hostage, the hostage’s family would have to refuse entry! “
Incorrect. If the police were denied entry in the first place, which is what the “chicken little police state” crowd want...then the terrorist could have gone on hiding and his whereabouts would have been unknown.
But, if the house is searched, and the terrorist is there...obviously, the jig is up. Whether by search or by family refusing the search.
...meant to say...
“If the police were denied entry (on a mass scale) in the first place
And again, the police didn’t find him.
Paul’s comments are disgusting.
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.