Roadblocks to catch a murderer, cooperate with being searched or not.

sudden valley gunner said:

Please cite the constitutional authority that it is the number of victims that would erase the restrictions put on government?

Click to expand...

Its called exigent circumstances..... warrant permission or exigent circumstances.... the SEVERITY of the the crimes and the POSSIBILITY for more death and harm to the people (oh I don't k ow.... more ieds.... more pipe bombs.... more car jackings... more shootings....) coupled with some kind of RAS that the dude is there amounts to exigent circumstances. As long as you can articulate that.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Exigent circumstances means that not only is someone in IMMEDIATE danger, but that there is more than mere suspicion of a crime. There was no probable cause to search homes in a whole city without warrants. Not only did it fail, it terrorized the people of this country more than the bombers did.

Plus add in the stupidity that the LE showed in Boston that looked like a episode of Keystone Cops. I mean really! Looking for a bomber, flipping lids on garbage cans. Complete MORONS!

Let also not forget that when they actually found the bomber, they fired over 70 rounds at a UNARMED man, and MISSED with every shot. They should hang their head in shame, but the media instead reporting the incompetence of these buffoons made them look like heroes.

King George would have been proud of them!

OOOPS almost forgot, Russia gave the LEAs a heads up well before the bombings and they failed to prevent them!

Primus said:

You are correct and I agree that the door to door didn't find him.

I stated that. I stated that the citizen found him NOT the team. My point was that they were in the area due to the searches. Oh, that's what justifies the illegal searches, because it puts them "in the area" of the subjects Instead of him calling and them sending a patrol car they had immediate response. Yeah, because the story didn't say that the guy had probably been hiding in the boat for some time due to the fact that the homeowner was locked down in his own home, when he would have probably found the suspect much sooner had he not been put on lockdown. Let's just ignore the facts and pretend that any amount of time was saved by putting an entire community on lockdown and performing egregiously unconstitutional searches which turned up no trace of the persons being searched for

Also, anyone have any suggestion what they should have done? I don't need to provide an alternative to validate that what was done was the wrong thing I mean after blowing up 2 IEDs. Wounding 250ish killing several (to include a small child) then murdering an officer, car jacking someone (with the threat of death obviously), then getting into a full blown shootout....

Should they have just gone home? Ahhhh we'll put a bolo out for him hell turn up...... No one has said that except you, Primus.

I honestly don't know how/why people were forces from their home. That's why I ASKED if anyone had the story. Now you were just asking... Honest and innocent little Primus, just asking questions and getting ridiculed for it Awww. Did they have some reason to believe those homes had him in there? No.

From a legal perspective I'd say yod have exigent circumstances if you could articulate why you thought the dude was in any one of those houses. Too bad they didn't. And again did they give permission? No. Already answered. Try reading. It's helpful in these situations. Were there any lawsuits after this? Holy ****, a good question.

Guys Monday morning quarterback but what about the people involved. Those citizens that had guns pointed at them. Where is their outrage? Documented. Maybe they knew something you or I don't? They've told their stories, they've shared what they know, and what they know is disgusting violations of their rights.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Once again, Primus, you've had opportunity after opportunity to gain credibility, and even come close sometimes, and then have thrown all decency out the window to push more and more of your ********. I pray that nobody reading these forums has succumbed to your ignorant babbling and mistaken it for any sort of "good point"

This is your common theme.

Primus said:

I didn't even watch the whole video. I'm asking questions to get the facts before I make assumptions.

Click to expand...

This is exactly why Primus has failed to hold any credibility with me for any significant amount of time. He pulled similar shenanigans in one of my threads in the Texas subforum, except there he essentially drug it out into a multi-page flame war. He made defaming accusations against open carry proponents without even watching the video which the thread was created to discuss.

I thought he was past that sort of indecent behavior, but apparently not.

Here he even has the gall to say that he's trying to get the facts before making assumptions, and somehow he thinks that we're ignorant enough to believe that someone who has declined to even finish the video being discussed is interested in getting all of the facts?

I have held my tongue on more than one occasion purely because I was not able to fully read an article or fully watch a video that was being discussed. In my opinion, it's generally the responsible and decent thing to do. Sure, there have been times that I've commented on a subject without reading a full article, but I at least make an effort to disclose that fact first and foremost so that other posters and readers can know that my post may be made from a position of ignorance of article or video being discussed and so that they can chose to be increasingly critical of any potentially false conclusions.

Primus said:

Its called exigent circumstances..... warrant permission or exigent circumstances.... the SEVERITY of the the crimes and the POSSIBILITY for more death and harm to the people (oh I don't k ow.... more ieds.... more pipe bombs.... more car jackings... more shootings....) coupled with some kind of RAS that the dude is there amounts to exigent circumstances. As long as you can articulate that.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

I know what exigent circumstances are, you did not answer my question.

sudden valley gunner said:

I know what exigent circumstances are, you did not answer my question.

Click to expand...

Nothing in the constitution about exigent circumstances. I agree. Its built off case law.... (common law? Uh oh ...)

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

WalkingWolf said:

Exigent circumstances means that not only is someone in IMMEDIATE danger, but that there is more than mere suspicion of a crime. There was no probable cause to search homes in a whole city without warrants. Not only did it fail, it terrorized the people of this country more than the bombers did.

Plus add in the stupidity that the LE showed in Boston that looked like a episode of Keystone Cops. I mean really! Looking for a bomber, flipping lids on garbage cans. Complete MORONS!

Let also not forget that when they actually found the bomber, they fired over 70 rounds at a UNARMED man, and MISSED with every shot. They should hang their head in shame, but the media instead reporting the incompetence of these buffoons made them look like heroes.

King George would have been proud of them!

OOOPS almost forgot, Russia gave the LEAs a heads up well before the bombings and they failed to prevent them!

Click to expand...

To expand on the fail, let's not forget that in the previous attempt to detain the two bombing suspects, eyewitness accounts strongly suggest that MBTA Transit Police Officer Richard H. Donohue Jr. was shot and nearly killed by a fellow officer in Watertown during the hail of gunfire unleashed on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev as he made a getaway in a carjacked sport utility vehicle. It appears that as many as a dozen commandos from four agencies engaged in a spree of "spray and pray", with no accountability for their actions.

I loved their excuses.

“It’s arguably a wartime situation,” said Chuck Wexler, executive director of the Police *Executive Research Forum, a Washington nonprofit that conducts research on law enforcement. “Police agencies are not generally prepared for the kind of wartime situation that these officers encountered.”

So we have law enforcement researchers claiming the police were involved in a "wartime situation", and there were an unknown amount of commandos that seemingly appeared out of thin air, all similarly equipped...and we are told there is no systematic militarization of the police. Note I didn't say "our" police.

The debacle of removing the wounded teenager from the boat didn't end that night. The owner of the boat, David Henneberry, isn't as grateful for the warriors that saved America as we are led to think.

"On that April evening, the only time he became nervous, he said, was when an officer came to their neighbor’s — where the couple had taken refuge — to ask whether he had any gas inside the boat. He told them the tank had about 40 gallons.

“‘I guess I’m going to lose the boat,’ I thought,” he said, recalling the gunfire. “I hope we don’t lose the house, or the neighborhood.”
The implication being the commandos were considering burning the boat on a hunch. Worked on Chris Dorner, right?

Returning home two days later, they found that police and FBI agents had taken over their house.
Investigators remained at their house for nine days, and when they left, they took the couple’s beloved, now bullet-riddled boat. It will remain in government custody as evidence until the conclusion of the trial and the appeals process for Tsarnaev. “We generally don’t compensate people for seized items,” said Greg Comcowich, an FBI spokesman in Boston.

Some neighbors, whose homes were also taken over by police and strafed by automatic weapons, are also coping with the lingering impact of what happened here six months ago.

Olga Ciuc, who lives two doors down on Franklin Street, refuses to sleep in her old bedroom, which overlooks their backyard, and remains too afraid to walk her dog at night.

“What happened here was crazy,” she said.

I wonder if she is referencing the bombing.....or the response.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Rumor is that he penciled in the second Tuesday of next week for that acknowledgement.

Click to expand...

Looks like you were wrong.

You folks gotta start giving this guy some credit. You're treating him like a troll, but he can be swayed. Change your tack.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Primus said:

You are correct and I agree that the door to door didn't find him.

I stated that. I stated that the citizen found him NOT the team. My point was that they were in the area due to the searches. Instead of him calling and them sending a patrol car they had immediate response.

Also, anyone have any suggestion what they should have done? I mean after blowing up 2 IEDs. Wounding 250ish killing several (to include a small child) then murdering an officer, car jacking someone (with the threat of death obviously), then getting into a full blown shootout....

Should they have just gone home? Ahhhh we'll put a bolo out for him hell turn up......

I honestly don't know how/why people were forces from their home. That's why I ASKED if anyone had the story. Did they have some reason to believe those homes had him in there?

From a legal perspective I'd say yod have exigent circumstances if you could articulate why you thought the dude was in any one of those houses. And again did they give permission? Were there any lawsuits after this?

Guys Monday morning quarterback but what about the people involved. Those citizens that had guns pointed at them. Where is their outrage? Maybe they knew something you or I don't?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Cops don't have to wildly violate the Fourth to be in the area! They should have been patrolling the area and ASKING for help, not dressing military and intimidating homeowners with large numbers of heavily-armed officers. ONE officer should knock on each door, dressed like the ordinary cop on the beat.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

There is a mid-point between not obstructing their search for a murderer, and not surrendering my rights. I would cooperate, but not voluntary allow a vehicle search.

eye95 said:

Looks like you were wrong.

You folks gotta start giving this guy some credit. You're treating him like a troll, but he can be swayed. Change your tack.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Click to expand...

I hold Primus is getting every bit of credit he has earned. He is getting every bit of respect he has earned. He seems to have no problem putting effort into earning the degree of contempt he receives.

Primus said:

You are correct and I agree that the door to door didn't find him.

I stated that. I stated that the citizen found him NOT the team. My point was that they were in the area due to the searches. Instead of him calling and them sending a patrol car they had immediate response.

Also, anyone have any suggestion what they should have done? I mean after blowing up 2 IEDs. Wounding 250ish killing several (to include a small child) then murdering an officer, car jacking someone (with the threat of death obviously), then getting into a full blown shootout....

Should they have just gone home? Ahhhh we'll put a bolo out for him hell turn up......

I honestly don't know how/why people were forces from their home. That's why I ASKED if anyone had the story. Did they have some reason to believe those homes had him in there?

From a legal perspective I'd say yod have exigent circumstances if you could articulate why you thought the dude was in any one of those houses. And again did they give permission? Were there any lawsuits after this?

Guys Monday morning quarterback but what about the people involved. Those citizens that had guns pointed at them. Where is their outrage? Maybe they knew something you or I don't?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

What was your excuse for the government violating rights again? I am unclear.

[video=youtube_share;zHym0NyR05s]http://youtu.be/zHym0NyR05s[/video]

Primus said:

Nothing in the constitution about exigent circumstances. I agree. Its built off case law.... (common law? Uh oh ...)

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

How can you claim common law, without showing us that there is a common law court still?
If there are no more common law courts then the state cannot use the reasoning/excuse that "common law" allows for the state to encroach on rights at all.

Primus said:

Its called exigent circumstances..... warrant permission or exigent circumstances.... the SEVERITY of the the crimes and the POSSIBILITY for more death and harm to the people (oh I don't k ow.... more ieds.... more pipe bombs.... more car jackings... more shootings....) coupled with some kind of RAS that the dude is there amounts to exigent circumstances. As long as you can articulate that.


Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Welllll....if a person is driving a car and gets stopped for the purported reason that a killer is running around the area randomly killing people then isn't the gov't putting the people at risk? Shouldn't they be unabated to leave the area? Run away w/o delay?

Kinda makes you wonder who's purposes are being served by telling people caught in a mass shooting to "hide where you are, shelter in place" doesn't it?

davidmcbeth said:

Welllll....if a person is driving a car and gets stopped for the purported reason that a killer is running around the area randomly killing people then isn't the gov't putting the people at risk? Shouldn't they be unabated to leave the area? Run away w/o delay?

Click to expand...

Good question. In Massachusetts, they've forced people out of the safety of their homes at gunpoint and into the street while a terrorist was loose.

Fallschirmjäger said:

Kinda makes you wonder who's purposes are being served by telling people caught in a mass shooting to "hide where you are, shelter in place" doesn't it?

Click to expand...

There were other "decisions" made that were a little questionable.....

“At the direction of authorities, select Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in the Boston area are open to take care of needs of law enforcement and first responders,” spokeswoman Lindsay Harrington told Boston.com."

It was reported by Bloomberg Business that it would cost $333 million dollars per day to shut down the city of Boston.

Fuller Malarkey said:

Good question. In Massachusetts, they've forced people out of the safety of their homes at gunpoint and into the street while a terrorist was loose.

Click to expand...

I would be out on my front porch ready to deal with any intruders.

Fuller Malarkey said:

I hold Primus is getting every bit of credit he has earned. He is getting every bit of respect he has earned. He seems to have no problem putting effort into earning the degree of contempt he receives.

Click to expand...

+1

Especially his evasive debate tactics.

Any seeming "swayed" Primus has shown is likely a strategic withdrawal for PR purposes.

Overall, he's gone well beyond giving us RAS and probable cause.

davidmcbeth said:

I would be out on my front porch ready to deal with any intruders.

Click to expand...

Seems they anticipated some resistance........

Primus said:

I was referring to photos of the aftermath they use to instill fear and bring emotions and away "this is why you should ban guns" etc. Or photos/videos of guns firing to show how "scary" they are.

No lies. Some guns were used to kill people. Some guns do fire full auto and that scares some people. They aren't lies but its TWISTED by antis for their propaganda.

Same as the above photos. No lies. Police did go door to door. But now they are being posted up to SCARE people about police or the .gov. they are being used to instill rage or other emotions. So.... a form of propaganda.

Click to expand...

So?

It is showing the police acting beyond their authority while threatening lethal force against citizens.