Masshole Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 =...The very thought that I could be framed for a crime... Hold up. Who is being framed in this case? Was someone wearing a Dzokhar mask while throwing explosives at the police from a stolen car? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KState_Poke22 Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 It's beginning to seem like they're not just some loner kids who snapped one day. Boston bombers: FBI hunting 12-strong terrorist “sleeper cell” linked to brothers Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev - Mirror Online http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/boston-bombers-fbi-hunting-12-strong-1844844#.UXM54Yqm6hA.twitter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SocialD Posted April 21, 2013 Share Posted April 21, 2013 (edited) It really sucks having to defend personal liberty every damn time some asshole sets off a bomb and demonstrates how insecure and afraid our people are of the freedoms that we enjoy. Yes, gun nuts, that extends to your right to own 50 anti-materiel sniper rifles as much as it extends to the right to free speech and due process. Welcome to the party! We "gun nuts," hate to have to defend our right to own guns every time some shit head commits a crime with one, as well. Edited April 21, 2013 by SocialD 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I want an anti-Matter sniper rifle, never heard of a anti-material one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brickhistory Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Christmas '09 underwear bomber tried to blow up a US airliner over US soil, had his rights read to him within an hour and he's a Nigerian. This SOB is an American and he's not entitled? Rule of law according to political whim. What could possibly go wrong... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 I want an anti-Matter sniper rifle, never heard of a anti-material one. Anti-material rifle = big ass guns (wiki source, so take it FWIW) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted April 22, 2013 Author Share Posted April 22, 2013 Materiel ≠ Material Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmacwc Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 Ahhhh poop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) In this country, it's not against the law to be a supporter of radical Islam. Lastly, considering how quickly they were identified and brought to justice, I think the FBI did a pretty good job. I'd like to hear how you think they could have done better given the circumstances... To be clear, I am not bashing the FBI... My point was something already has gone wrong, and it went wrong on the FBI's watch. There are no guarantees that any prosecution case will be built as spotlessly as you suggest. We are all human and all fallible. Edited April 22, 2013 by Steve Davies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergman Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 We are all human and all fallible. Umm...perhaps for you journalists. Most of us are pilots. Didn't you get the memo on that, Steve? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 He's been charged as a civilian for the use of a WMD (amongst other things). BBC report Umm...perhaps for you journalists. Most of us are pilots. Didn't you get the memo on that, Steve? After all this time, I should have known. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CannonCrashPad Posted April 22, 2013 Share Posted April 22, 2013 (edited) He's been charged as a civilian for the use of a WMD (amongst other things). BBC report After all this time, I should have known. Good. Our Constitution won't be plundered, and he will get the due process owed to him. May justice be done, and may he rot in hell with his brother. Edited April 22, 2013 by CannonCrashPad 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 To be clear, I am not bashing the FBI... Funny, it sure sounded like it! The same FBI that investigated one of the suspects after a tip-off by a foreign government that he was a supporter of radical Islam? http://www.fbi.gov/n...eign-government My point was something already has gone wrong, and it went wrong on the FBI's watch. Wow, really? Pray tell, give us insight as to how in the hell they were suppose to prevent such an act? That's the problem with you journos, you seem to have the answer to everything after the fact. If your lot is as insightful as you claim to be, you should have known about it as well and report it; but as usual all your brilliance seems to show up a day late and a dollar short. There are no guarantees that any prosecution case will be built as spotlessly as you suggest. We are all human and all fallible. Some more than others; but I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a very strong case built on the surviving member of this attack, thanks in part to the work of the FBI. I never said they are spotless, but I challenge you to tell me who could do better. And I honestly don't give a fuck about this asshole's rights, he attacked the very country that offered him shelter from the shithole he grew up in. I spent 25 years in service to that country and fucktard liberals don't give a rat's ass about my rights; but they will jump through hoops to defend his. Fuck them and all like them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrndPndr Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 <SNIP> Some more than others; but I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a very strong case built on the surviving member of this attack, thanks in part to the work of the FBI. I never said they are spotless, but I challenge you to tell me who could do better. <Not SNIP> And I honestly don't give a ###### about this asshole's rights, he attacked the very country that offered him shelter from the shithole he grew up in. I spent 25 years in service to that country and ######tard liberals don't give a rat's ass about my rights; but they will jump through hoops to defend his. ###### them and all like them! From what I saw and heard via comms, the FBI directed much of what took place on Friday, and yet when it was time to be happy (some might say celebrate) the capture of Dbag2, the FBI throttled back and let the local and MA state folks enjoy the limelight. I think the "FBI Guys" deserve a free drink next time I see one. FM 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Funny, it sure sounded like it! Wow, really? Pray tell, give us insight as to how in the hell they were suppose to prevent such an act? That's the problem with you journos, you seem to have the answer to everything after the fact. If your lot is as insightful as you claim to be, you should have known about it as well and report it; but as usual all your brilliance seems to show up a day late and a dollar short. Some more than others; but I can pretty much guarantee that there will be a very strong case built on the surviving member of this attack, thanks in part to the work of the FBI. I never said they are spotless, but I challenge you to tell me who could do better. And I honestly don't give a fuck about this asshole's rights, he attacked the very country that offered him shelter from the shithole he grew up in. I spent 25 years in service to that country and fucktard liberals don't give a rat's ass about my rights; but they will jump through hoops to defend his. Fuck them and all like them! M2 I'm with you I hate the double standard, but any reason they can use to strip him of his rights can further be used against any other citizen. The 2nd Ammendment is fairly safe, but the fourth and seventh amendments could fairly quickly disappear and most people wouldn't say a thing because it was in the "interest of safety", and it doesn't effect them... YET. Yes fuck him and I hope he rots in hell, but lets not allow him to be used to strip us of any further rights or set any precedences. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Learjetter Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Speaking of the 4th Amendment... http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Speaking of the 4th Amendment... http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/ I hope they get their asses sued off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitaryToFinance Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Speaking of the 4th Amendment... http://www.infowars....-by-swat-teams/ The scary thing is I posted that on Facebook and almost every one of my friends said they see no problem with it. Apparently the Constitution only matters when you feel like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The scary thing is I posted that on Facebook and almost every one of my friends said they see no problem with it. Apparently the Constitution only matters when you feel like it. Sounds like you need some better friends. Or were these just 'Facebook' friends? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AnimalMother Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Ugh. It doesn't matter whose rights you care about at this point, the new precedent has been set. Constitutional rights are no longer rights, they are privileges, to be assigned and revoked at will. Oh the plus side, we'll have great stories to tell our grand kids about living through the systematic dismantling of one of the most seminal documents in human history and the subsequent demise of the republic. Sorry Ben, but I think you knew we wouldn't be able to keep it for long... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrndPndr Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I hope they get their asses sued off. While this sure seems to be another "Norm" established in our free society, and not a good thing in general - I wonder if under these exact circumstances, YOU have an alternative to how they went about their duties? And why do you think these guys should be hauled into court and sued for doing their sworn duty? Of course, I know the answer is that you want to punish them. How far would you go to punish them? FM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeloDude Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Sorry Ben, but I think you knew we wouldn't be able to keep it for long... I know I have seen different versions of this...but the story is something I truly value: The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately. A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.” It's a shame that when you bring up The Constitution, Rights, Liberties, and Freedoms, that a lot of people look at you as if you are the weird one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HU&W Posted April 23, 2013 Author Share Posted April 23, 2013 I could post a long and boring comment about other historical police organizations who, at the time, were acting within their authority and jurisdiction according to the laws of their government. But I will summarize the potential TL;DR with "Godwin's Law." We're obviously not there, but we, as a nation, have to be very careful about how we define our own future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HercDude Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 The scary thing is I posted that on Facebook and almost every one of my friends said they see no problem with it. Apparently the Constitution only matters when you feel like it. Which part of the Constitution is being violated here? Without any context whatsoever, I don't think it's possible to say whether this is "unreasonable" or not. If they are going house-to-house doing this indiscriminately , then I would agree that this is unconstitutional. However there is nothing in this video to suggest that the cops here didn't target that house specifically based off of credible intelligence. Can you tell from the video if they had a warrant? They were looking for a bomber and a cop killer - are they supposed to just stand in the middle of the street with a bullhorn and ask nicely for him to quit hiding? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) While this sure seems to be another "Norm" established in our free society, and not a good thing in general - I wonder if under these exact circumstances, YOU have an alternative to how they went about their duties? And why do you think these guys should be hauled into court and sued for doing their sworn duty? Of course, I know the answer is that you want to punish them. How far would you go to punish them? FM You can't claim exigent circumstances (I.e. immediate danger) and then proceed to systematically search 20 city blocks and then it turns out the dude was hiding outside their "perimeter". If people wanted to let them in, then by all means but if I opened my door and said "he's not here", the police unless they believe otherwise should move on since a) they have no proof he's even there (or they would have a warrant) and b) they can't prove that I'm in immediate danger (then there's no need for one) Their sworn duty is to uphold the law and conduct their business within those standards. The burden of proof is on the officers to prove now that their 20 block door to door search fell into the immediate danger to each and every occupant in each and every house. They were shooting in the dark and hoping to hit something, which while it may be the best option they had doesn't mean they are above the laws. As for punishment, I respect what they were trying to achieve, maybe some law refreshers for them. Mainly I want someone to hold their feet to the fire and show them that laws apply to them still. ETA: there's no perfect solution in a free society, because the government is the one restricted, which may seem inconvenient but I would rather have more freedom and the danger associated with it, than more government control and the same danger. Notice what is constant in this equation? The danger,it will always exist, and therefore I will take the freedom. Edited April 23, 2013 by Fuzz 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts