Watch the police remove a Watertown family from their home, and then search it.

[n1oty]

I respectfully disagree. We have observed a number of bombing episodes in the past where the perpetrators have either fled on foot or were thought to have fled on foot, and that they were either still on the loose or surviving co-conspirators may be on the loose. The bombing of the WTC in 1993 is one example and it never devolved into a mass dragnet that swept up innocent people in its web. The investigation was performed in a standard manner.

Another terrorist bombing attack that is striking in its similarity is the London transportation bombings a few years back. At first, no one knew if they were suicide bombings and, if they were, whether there were surviving co-conspirators. I would even argue that the London bombings were more dramatic than our marathon bombing as it involved more separate explosions at more diverse locations. Yet, the subsequent searches for evidence, surviving attackers or co-conspirators never devolved to widespread searching. IIRC, it involved some vehicle searches and about a half dozen properties. A couple of those searches did turn up explosives evidence. The London bombings are also eerily similar to our marathon bombing as being the product of warped, fanatical, muslim minds.

Let me pretend for a moment that the Watertown dragnet had the best of intentions and that the officials and LEO's involved honestly felt that they had a decent chance of finding the surviving bomber in this widespread, house-to-house, apparently non-court sanctioned dragnet. We are now in the process of an after-action critique of all the events, actions and reactions surrounding the bombing event. I assume that our politicians and LEO agencies are self-critiquing their response as we speak. We know that much of the LEO response in the aftermath of the bombing, though undoubtedly brave and heartfelt, was utterly ineffective. The FBI, in particular, showed once again that the only thing they do well is to comb for and catalog evidence of a crime scene. Everything else they touch turns to shit. They have always been like that. We know and the LEO's know that ultimately they did not find the bad guy. So, obviously the flooding of a neighborhood and mass searching was utterly ineffective. Even accepting your point that my analysis could be tainted by hindsight, what are we being treated to by the LEO community going forward??? Rather than acknowledge that some failed tactics were employed and a recognition that they have to re-evaluate such tactics going forward, we are treated to such gems as Ed Davis thinking drones are a good idea going forward or ignoring the significance that one of the wounded LEO's may have been hurt with friendly fire. Intelligent people know when they are being bull-shitted.

What was the precedent to conclude they weren't likely to catch him? It's not everyday you have a known bomber flee on foot in a residential neighborhood. In fact, I can't think of another time it's ever happened.

We know you may well be correct now. But that wasn't the case a little over a week ago. That's my point when I suggested confirmation bias.

 

[n1oty]

I'm sure that some NES'ers will not agree with me. I feel that my position is not unreasonable. If the government can articulate some real suspicion that something is probably amiss in a particular property, then entry should be made at that property, but they better be able to articulate down to the individual property. I start to have a jaundiced eye even with adjacent properties, but I am open in that case to exigent circumstances. The key is that actions should be as narrow as possible and specific.

I'd assume most of your fellow NESers disagree.


The problem with this part becomes defining a limiting principle of your "cluster" or "handful of houses" . Is three okay? What about 10? 20? Where do you draw the line?

 

[OfficerObie59]

All good info.

But what would have the people that wrote, debated and ratified CONUS in each of our states found to be reasonable?

We have a couple of guys that were accused of a violent crime.....given it was a little more violent than many.

An act of domestic terrorism and the execution of a campus police officer...just a "little more violent than many". The understatement of the year.

By the way, that phrase that is essentially meaningless, since "many" is an open ended term and bears no relationship relative to the entire population. You could be midget and still be "a little more taller than many".

We have been told that they were throwing bombs at police but there's no evidence to support that.

Had the police witnessed him going into a property I was say absolutely reasonable.

Oh, c'mon now. Did you listen to that video and see the picture pressure cooker bomb that went off in the street? To say there's no evidence is to be completely dishonest. You're entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts.

In any event, what is reasonable is not what actually happened, but what those engaged in the manhunt reasonably believed to have have happened. Again, hindsight is always 20/20.

To go door to door through several towns looking for the guy doesn't meet the threshold for reasonable......there's no evidence to believe that he is or is not in any given home/structure.

First, I thought these door to door searches were limited to Watertown, not multiple towns. Second, let's keep in mind most of the accounts I've heard was that the police knocked on doors, asked homeowners if the homeowner would like them to clear their homes. When they were told it was not necessary, they left. There's also some possibility, albeit unconfirmed, that the house in the OP's video was searched pursuant to a warrant and/or specific facts that the surviving Tsarnev was inside.

Had the police exercised prudence and used dogs to track the guy (who was bleeding) and they led to a home then I'd say yes, that would be reasonable as there was evidence to support it.

So, do you believe that a police dog's nose is sufficent to provide levels of suspicion? That's very controversial at the moment amongst libertarians, and SCOTUS via the recent case Florida v. Jardines might well disagree. Curious how you'd flush out that legal logic.

This Dog Can Send You to Jail - Reason.com

Florida v. Jardines - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If we're going to suggest that this fits the bill of "reasonable" search then every time there's a rapist/violent criminal (ie every day) the police would be free to search every house/structure in an area and it would be considered to be "reasonable"

Given this, 4A would be worthless and would not comply with the intent of those that wrote it.

This is a total apples to oranges comparison. Your average (i.e., every day) rapist/violent criminal does not go around throwing bombs at people. If you still have any question as to whether there were really IED's you an I can't continue a reasoned discussion based on a denial of an obvious fact.

Remember, the powers granted to Gov, in particular the fed gov are extremely limited.....CONUS is an enumeration of those specific powers and the BOR is a reminder to the fed gov that they may not do certain things.

I agree to a point, but I take issue with your first sentence with regards to governments other than federal. The states have plenery police power, meaning they can enforce all the laws on anything they wish. At the time the Massachusetts Constitution was ratified in 1780, things like blasphemy, sodomy, and the bulk of the rest of MGL ch. 272 was against the law. Sure, government was limited in scope but there's nothing unconstitutional about the majority of the unfortunate expansion in state government over the past 234 years.

If we are going to err on the one side or the other clearly the historical record supports erring on the side of limited gov and liberty

I can agree with that here--I just disagree where the lines are.

What conditions would ever support the search of multiple different properties?

Likely where you have reason to believe party is in an area that can be cordoned off by police and covered in a single day. I would agree 20 blocks is pushing it.

Clearly blood leading to a house would support a specific home/structure as would other examples where there's specific evidence.......dogs trained to track would be another example that may lead to one (or subsequently more) but I can't think of any set of circumstances that would ever result in anyone coming to the conclusion that a fishing expedition/searching multiple homes without actionable evidence would be considered to be "reasonable" by anyone that wrote/debated/ratified 4A or CONUS

I think we all know that the searches that occurred in the boston area failed to meet the notion of being reasonable.

There was no probably cause, there were no witnesses to attest to seeing the accused enter any of these property.......what we witnessed was historically referred to as a "general search".

Again, apples to oranges

The main difference between what happened in Watertown and colonial-era general searches under writs of assiatnce was the target of the search. The police in Watertown were after a third party. The colonial tax collecter was going after the homeowner/tenant. Those were fishing expeditions.

What your evidence this was afishing expedition? Again, who has been charged criminally with things the police saw or observed as a result of their searches on April 19th?

No evidence to support = not reasonable

That's valid opinion, but one I still think is based on cherry picking of historical facts.

This notion of public safety is one that irks me to no end.

Clearly the Fed Gov wasn't granted power/authority to fabricate some notion of "public safety" let alone protect the public/individuals.

So what does the Mass Constitution say on the issue?

Very first paragraph of the preamble gives a good indication of Adams' intent:

The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.

Notably, safety is mentioned in the same paragraph as natrual rights. The two were certainly meant to co-exist.

If I may take another step back I think we need to step back and consider the least common denominator here.

What is the purpose of Gooberment (at any level) and why did we citizens create it?

I think that anyone that is honest will agree that the function of gooberment is to "Protect Liberty, Freedom and Private Property Rights"

This is why our police up until the last couple decades were "Peacekeepers" as opposed to "Law Enforcement".

Agreed.

There's no such thing as "Public Safety"......

I dunno. That paragraph I quoted seemed to say the exact opposite. "Protect the body politic".

After all, why were there night watch constables in early days with arrest powers? They weren't just keeping the peace and giving hue and cry.

its a cooked up expression that gooberment uses every time they feel a need to trample your liberty, freedom or private property rights.

An oversued excuse for sure, but "every time" is overbroad. I would advocate for limits stricter than we have now, but I think your limits are too far in that direction.

Gov has no responsibility as we all know, to defend or protect an individual.......they do have an obligation/duty to keep the peace.

Not entirely true.

What is true is the police and government have no general federal substantive due process responsibility to defend or protect an individual. Notwithstanding that the whole doctrine of substantive due process is constitutionally suspect, the state still has a SDP duty to proetct if there is a special relationship between the state and citizen (think inmates) or the state creates the hazard.

Individual states can creat carveouts to soverign immunity if they choose to allow for these caused of action, and I believe a few states have.

Separately, there was no "federal" crime committed here.....even using extreme legal gymnastics nothing in CONUS would possibly give the fed gov the power or authority to pass any law that would make what happened entirely within the confines of the state of Mass a federal crime.

Sedition would work here, and it would be totally consistent with an original understanding of our federal Constitution.

 

[snd1t]

All good info.

But what would have the people that wrote, debated and ratified CONUS in each of our states found to be reasonable?

Originally Posted by jpk
We have a couple of guys that were accused of a violent crime.....given it was a little more violent than many.

An act of domestic terrorism and the execution of a campus police officer...just a "little more violent than many". The understatement of the year.

3 people and 1 officer were killed and nearly 200 injured....some horribly, some to a trivial degree

We have automobile accidents/pileups every year that are more severe than this.....the only difference is in one case we have intent to harm where in others we have demonstrated negligence (impaired driving, texting, etc).

This isnt to belittle in any way, shape or form the harm to all of those people that simply wanted to watch the marathon.....all I'm doing is pointing out that the severity is no different than what we see on a regular basis where equal/larger numbers of people were just going about their business.

The point being that the actions of the police searching house to house are in no way “reasonable” given the circumstances.

Had the Gov declared martial law or a state of emergency this would be a different story altogether but its not.

 

[OfficerObie59]

3 people and 1 officer were killed and nearly 200 injured....some horribly, some to a trivial degree

We have automobile accidents/pileups every year that are more severe than this.....the only difference is in one case we have intent to harm where in others we have demonstrated negligence (impaired driving, texting, etc).

This isnt to belittle in any way, shape or form the harm to all of those people that simply wanted to watch the marathon.....all I'm doing is pointing out that the severity is no different than what we see on a regular basis where equal/larger numbers of people were just going about their business.

The point being that the actions of the police searching house to house are in no way “reasonable” given the circumstances.

Had the Gov declared martial law or a state of emergency this would be a different story altogether but its not.

While I dispute that automobile pile-ups that kill four people and injure nearly 200 are anything close to a common event or that they happen "every year", the intent provides for the reasonableness. To say it doesn't is almost a non-sequitur. Someone is trying to kill others with purpose, malice and aforethought. Logically, this person is much more dangerous than any driving texter because he's trying to maximize the effect of his acts, which is to kill as many people as possible.

 

[Quiet]

3 people and 1 officer were killed and nearly 200 injured....some horribly, some to a trivial degree

We have automobile accidents/pileups every year that are more severe than this.....the only difference is in one case we have intent to harm where in others we have demonstrated negligence (impaired driving, texting, etc).

This isnt to belittle in any way, shape or form the harm to all of those people that simply wanted to watch the marathon.....all I'm doing is pointing out that the severity is no different than what we see on a regular basis where equal/larger numbers of people were just going about their business.

The government did more damage to the country than did the terrorists, but most people don't (and never will) realize it. This will be used as the model for any time the authorities really want to find someone. Gang war? City Lockdown! Prison escape? Statewide Lockdown! 2A Rally? Cancel all events for public safety reasons! Let'em sue us! It'll be 5, 6 years down the road if ever, I'll be out of oofice and the worst that will happen is the court might say: "Bad government. Bad!" Which will be ignored anyway.

The point being that the actions of the police searching house to house are in no way “reasonable” given the circumstances.

Had the Gov declared martial law or a state of emergency this would be a different story altogether but its not.

They aren't to the point where they can declare martial law because that would highlight the actions that they're doing and the way that they would be violating the constitution without such a declaration. They just do it without the declaration, like every war we've unconstitutionally fought without such a declaration by Congress.

 

[snd1t]

While I dispute that automobile pile-ups that kill four people and injure nearly 200 are anything close to a common event or that they happen "every year", the intent provides for the reasonableness. To say it doesn't is almost a non-sequitur. Someone is trying to kill others with purpose, malice and aforethought. Logically, this person is much more dangerous than any driving texter because he's trying to maximize the effect of his acts, which is to kill as many people as possible.

They happen on a pretty regular basis out west on an annual or greater basis.

How many bus accidents do we see every year that result in similar or more fatalities each year?

There are thousands and thousands of people that die every year at the hands of negligent/inattentive drivers every year so lets not pretend that it not a problem that fails to meet the severity of 2 foreign kooks that decided to hurt a bunch of innocent people

We have hundreds of murders in mass every year.....many/most limited to larger metropolitan areas but that doesn't justtify or meet the level of "Reasonable"

Same with thousands of rapes in Mass every year and tens of thousands of assaults

The notion of "terror" is not all that different than the distinction between some scumbag raping a kid versus the same scumbag raping an adult......the former offends our sense of right and wrong more than the latter but lets not pretend that one or the other is any less severe because in each case the lives of an equal number of citizens are forever impacted.

Separately we had a cop go rogue out in Cali with no similar response

As others pointed out there have been other "terror"-like incidents that similarly failed to result in mass, unwarranted searches.

What is dangerous about this is that the actions of gooberment in this case were far more harmful to the public and liberty/freedom than the actions that these two scumbags did.

If we're going to decide that this is "reasonable" then the terrorists have won.

 

[snd1t]

The government did more damage to the country than did the terrorists, but most people don't (and never will) realize it. This will be used as the model for any time the authorities really want to find someone. Gang war? City Lockdown! Prison escape? Statewide Lockdown! 2A Rally? Cancel all events for public safety reasons! Let'em sue us! It'll be 5, 6 years down the road if ever, I'll be out of oofice and the worst that will happen is the court might say: "Bad government. Bad!" Which will be ignored anyway.

This summs up a portion of the issue far better than I did.

 

[snd1t]

[/B]
This notion of public safety is one that irks me to no end.

Clearly the Fed Gov wasn't granted power/authority to fabricate some notion of "public safety" let alone protect the public/individuals.

So what does the Mass Constitution say on the issue?

Very first paragraph of the preamble gives a good indication of Adams' intent:
The end of the institution, maintenance, and administration of government, is to secure the existence of the body politic, to protect it, and to furnish the individuals who compose it with the power of enjoying in safety and tranquility their natural rights, and the blessings of life: and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness.
Notably, safety is mentioned in the same paragraph as natrual rights. The two were certainly meant to co-exist.

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not particularly familiar with the Mass constitution.....what I've seen of it seems to imply that its a fustercluck of a mess thats been butchered and ridiculed by the socialists over the years.


I do think however that its important to point out that preambles are little more than flowery introductions and that they in no way approach the level of an enumerated power.


If we want to understand what was meant by or what precipitated the inclusion of such powers we need to look at the events of the decades that led up to the writing of the constitution or the debates that surrounded the adoption of amendments if it happened decades/centuries later.

Look at the "interstate commerce" clause and the tarrifs/fees/etc that occurred under the articles that led to its inclusion in CONUS....to break down the barriers to interstate commerce.....now today its become a perversion of power that does nothing but IMPEDE commerce

This is pretty common throughout all levels of gooberment (theme and variation).....excess/unconstitutional/extraconstitutional gooberment is crippling us and trampling liberty/freedom/private property rights.....we are no longer citizens, we are subjects to be ruled by the 4th branch of gooberment.....the bureaucracy

If we take the NH state constitution for example its clear that we have granted the state gooberment the authority to pass laws on most issues with the exception of where they run afoul of rights PROTECTED by our own bill of rights which I might point out includes not only a right to revolution but clearly an obligation to oppose perverted gooberment.


As farked up as the Mass constitutution is I think its clear that nothing in it would support or condone these actions without a declaration of martial law......and that wouldn't fly either.

If I may take another step back I think we need to step back and consider the least common denominator here.

What is the purpose of Gooberment (at any level) and why did we citizens create it?

I think that anyone that is honest will agree that the function of gooberment is to "Protect Liberty, Freedom and Private Property Rights"

This is why our police up until the last couple decades were "Peacekeepers" as opposed to "Law Enforcement".

Agreed.

Excellent common ground.

There's no such thing as "Public Safety"......

I dunno. That paragraph I quoted seemed to say the exact opposite. "Protect the body politic".

After all, why were there night watch constables in early days with arrest powers? They weren't just keeping the peace and giving hue and cry.

The “Body Politic” and "Public Safety" argument is sorta like advocacy of “Collective Rights” don't you think?


Rights are by their very definition individual in nature.


As to arrest powers well of course they had arrest powers.....whats the point otherwise and how would they otherwise deal with individuals that broke the peace?

This doesn't support calling what we saw in boston "reasonable" in any way shape or form.

 

[snd1t]

I have to be honest, I'm shocked that no one was killed in this door to door search......I think if it had happened in a state where the public were less conditioned to be subjects of the state that the outcome would have been horrible for everyone.

But with that said dont these actions fly in the face of liberty/freedom and RKBA?

The fact that a door to door search failed to yield anything and that the bleeding kid was found by a homeowner should be argument enough against the police state.

 

[Boman]

Was any of you actually there?

Was the house reported to Police as having people doing suspicious activity? Perhaps a neighbor with a ax to grind? Perhaps that neighbor reported that they was all Muslim extremist's? Does it give them the right to do that? No it does not but that was a extremely tense day for all Boston residents.

Sorry NES but the non stop cop bashing is really getting dumb. Did any of you see all the citizens cheering those same cops who was involved in this manhunt when they finally captured the guy?

Extreme cases require extreme reaction.

Also to the people who say "they would not do that to me in my house" all I can do is laugh. Heavily armed swat members with autos and your gonna jump ugly with them and say piss off I know my rights. Your a joke if you actually believe that. Would I be upset if this happened to me. Yes I would. I would have issue with it but in the end I would not resist. You need to pick battles you can win and being resistant to that search was not going to be a win for you.

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

Also to the people who say "they would not do that to me in my house" all I can do is laugh. Heavily armed swat members with autos and your gonna jump ugly with them and say piss off I know my rights. Your a joke if you actually believe that. Would I be upset if this happened to me. Yes I would. I would have issue with it but in the end I would not resist. You need to pick battles you can win and being resistant to that search was not going to be a win for you.

Obviously, you don't know many of us...

 

[Boman]

Obviously, you don't know many of us...

Ya your big and bad I get it. You know your rights. You own guns.

So do I.

Exactly how many people here do you actually know? It is easy to sit here in the forum and talk about how you know everything about your rights and how you would have stood up to 10 armed swat team members and just sent them on their way.

 

[snd1t]

Was any of you actually there?

Was the house reported to Police as having people doing suspicious activity? Perhaps a neighbor with a ax to grind? Perhaps that neighbor reported that they was all Muslim extremist's? Does it give them the right to do that? No it does not but that was a extremely tense day for all Boston residents.

Sorry NES but the non stop cop bashing is really getting dumb. Did any of you see all the citizens cheering those same cops who was involved in this manhunt when they finally captured the guy?

Extreme cases require extreme reaction.

Also to the people who say "they would not do that to me in my house" all I can do is laugh. Heavily armed swat members with autos and your gonna jump ugly with them and say piss off I know my rights. Your a joke if you actually believe that. Would I be upset if this happened to me. Yes I would. I would have issue with it but in the end I would not resist. You need to pick battles you can win and being resistant to that search was not going to be a win for you.

You're conflating a discussion about gooberment over-reaction/ineffective reaction/un-constitutional reaction with cop bashing.

I value my rights and life enough to believe that this is a worthy/valid discussion.

What in your opinion would have warranted the reaction that we saw on numerous videos without the evac of surrounding buildings?

I recall a morning driving past the capitol post 9/11 where they stopped and proceeded to tear apart a car 30 yards ahead of me for nearly an hour

When one of the cops wandered past I asked what they were doing and he said they thought there was a bomb in it........when I asked him why they hadn't moved all of us to a safe distance the light slowly began to light up.......

There are good,bad/other people in gov/police etc.......pretending that all employees of gooberment are good is destructive to liberty and freedom

 

[Big Daddy 45acp]

Exactly how many people here do you actually know? It is easy to sit here in the forum and talk about how you know everything about your rights and how you would have stood up to 10 armed swat team members and just sent them on their way.

I can honestly say that I have met several hundred of the members on this board. Most of whom I believe would stand up for their rights in the same situation. If you only pick the battles you know you can win, you will lose the war.

 

[Boman]

You may be right. I may be wrong.

I will cease to post.

 

[Finalygotabeltfed]

You may be right. I may be wrong.

I will cease to post.

Well, that was easy.

 

[Coyote33]

... Also to the people who say "they would not do that to me in my house" all I can do is laugh. Heavily armed swat members with autos and your gonna jump ugly with them and say piss off I know my rights. ... Would I be upset if this happened to me. Yes I would. I would have issue with it but in the end I would not resist. You need to pick battles you can win and being resistant to that search was not going to be a win for you.

Maybe it wouldn't, but it would be a win for rights. (see below)

...Extreme cases require extreme reaction. ...

 

[Quiet]

I have to be honest, I'm shocked that no one was killed in this door to door search......I think if it had happened in a state where the public were less conditioned to be subjects of the state that the outcome would have been horrible for everyone.

This type of search is ONLY necessary where the population is disarmed and unable to take care of their own lives.

 

[Quiet]

Was any of you actually there?

Was the house reported to Police as having people doing suspicious activity? Perhaps a neighbor with a ax to grind? Perhaps that neighbor reported that they was all Muslim extremist's? Does it give them the right to do that? No it does not but that was a extremely tense day for all Boston residents.

Sorry NES but the non stop cop bashing is really getting dumb. Did any of you see all the citizens cheering those same cops who was involved in this manhunt when they finally captured the guy?

Extreme cases require extreme reaction.

Also to the people who say "they would not do that to me in my house" all I can do is laugh. Heavily armed swat members with autos and your gonna jump ugly with them and say piss off I know my rights. Your a joke if you actually believe that. Would I be upset if this happened to me. Yes I would. I would have issue with it but in the end I would not resist. You need to pick battles you can win and being resistant to that search was not going to be a win for you.

You seem confused -- you know that it was wrong, you'd be angry as hell but submit to it because of the overwhelming force involved -- and you're also upset that others are unhappy with it? I don't understand.

I for one am NOT bashing the cops. They acted professionally and did their job (aside from the horrible shootout with unarmed suspect). What I have an issue with is the POLICY that allowed for this. That policy is made by the top cop and the governor. And the mayors.

 

[rkwjunior]

Was any of you actually there?

Was the house reported to Police as having people doing suspicious activity? Perhaps a neighbor with a ax to grind? Perhaps that neighbor reported that they was all Muslim extremist's? Does it give them the right to do that? No it does not but that was a extremely tense day for all Boston residents.

Sorry NES but the non stop cop bashing is really getting dumb. Did any of you see all the citizens cheering those same cops who was involved in this manhunt when they finally captured the guy?

Extreme cases require extreme reaction.

Also to the people who say "they would not do that to me in my house" all I can do is laugh. Heavily armed swat members with autos and your gonna jump ugly with them and say piss off I know my rights. Your a joke if you actually believe that. Would I be upset if this happened to me. Yes I would. I would have issue with it but in the end I would not resist. You need to pick battles you can win and being resistant to that search was not going to be a win for you.

Well said, Finally some common sense!!!

 

[snd1t]

This type of search is ONLY necessary where the population is disarmed and unable to take care of their own lives.

If I may add.....unable and/or UNWILLING to take care of their own lives.

Lack of personal responsibility goes hand in hand with big gov progressivism

 

[rkwjunior]

We have automobile accidents/pileups every year that are more severe than this.....the only difference is in one case we have intent to harm where in others we have demonstrated negligence (impaired driving, texting, etc).

This isnt to belittle in any way, shape or form the harm to all of those people that simply wanted to watch the marathon.....all I'm doing is pointing out that the severity is no different than what we see on a regular basis where equal/larger numbers of people were just going about their business.

This has to be the dumbest, most ridiculous statement i've heard yet. So what your actually saying is 9/11 was "the Norm" cause only 3000 people died, compared to the tens of thousands that die in car accidents every year, from texting etc.etc.??? There is absolutley no comparison to someone purposely doing harm, especially when no one knows what, or when it will happen, or how many people will die in the next eminent attack. These retards needed to be stopped as fast as possible before more deaths occured. Accidents happen due to neglegence everyday, and cannot be prevented, unless someone finds a cure for "stupid". And yes, you belittled every person effected by this tragedy and all others that are similar. Shame on you!!!!

 

[snd1t]

This has to be the dumbest, most ridiculous statement i've heard yet. So what your actually saying is 9/11 was "the Norm" cause only 3000 people died, compared to the tens of thousands that die in car accidents every year, from texting etc.etc.???

No, thats not what I said at all is it?

Please go back and read.....and in the future make an attempt to keep your response civil/without personal attack.....childish behavior is how perfectly good adult discussions get closed.

Had you read my post you would have seen that I compared the Boston incident in terms of casualties with accidents that happen with great frequency here in the US on our roads and elsewhere.

Clearly 9/11 is orders of magnitude different not only in terms of the number killed and wounded but also in terms of property/economic damage not to mention health issues that we continue to see in residents and responders to this day.

There is NO comparison to be made between Boston and 9/11 whatsoever

There is absolutley no comparison to someone purposely doing harm, especially when no one knows what, or when it will happen, or how many people will die in the next eminent attack. These retards needed to be stopped as fast as possible before more deaths occured. Accidents happen due to neglegence everyday, and cannot be prevented, unless someone finds a cure for "stupid". And yes, you belittled every person effected by this tragedy and all others that are similar. Shame on you!!!!

So there's no comparison eh?

How would you explain people with being charged with crimes like Negligent Homicide?

These are not accidents, they are examples of negligence and while the intent may differ, the outcome is on par with the loss of life, injuries and property damage we saw in Boston.

Stick to the facts and drop the purely emotional response.

Edit: And for the record here are a couple of the more spectacular road incidents in the last couple decades

Yuba City bus disaster A bus carrying the Yuba City High School a cappella choir falls off Interstate route 680 in California, killing 28 students and a teacher. This is the worst road accident in United States history

35 people are killed in the Sunshine Skyway Bridge disaster, Tampa, Florida, after a cargo ship collided with a bridge pier, knocking down over 1200 ft. of the bridge. 1980

A tour bus rolls off the highway near Jasper, Arkansas, killing 22 people and injuring 19 1980

A semi-trailer truck crashed into a mainline toll booth on the Connecticut Turnpike in Stratford, Connecticut, after brake failure, killing six people and injuring four. 1983

A tour bus plunges into the West Walker River near Walker, Mono County, California, killing 21 people and injuring 19 1986

27 people die in the Carrollton bus disaster near Carrollton, Kentucky, after a collision with a drunk driver driving the wrong way on Interstate 71. 1988

Whilst on tour, a semi trailer rammed into a tour bus containing singer Gloria Estefan, husband Emilio, their son and three other passengers at Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania, severely injuring Gloria. Following extensive surgery, she returned to an international tour ten months after the accident. 1990

A 99 car pile-up due to fog on Interstate 75 near Calhoun, Tennessee results in 12 deaths and 42 injured. 1990 The list goes on and on and on and on....

A bus carrying about 60 Girl Scouts overturns on a desert mountain road near California Highway 111 and not far from Palm Springs, killing 7 people. 1992

The list goes on and on and on and on....

 

[ThePreBanMan]

Personally I think anyone who says they would not resist is part of the problem, not part of the solution. That attitude is exactly why they can get away with this crap. I would have told them I'm fine in my home, and they can **** off and get off my property unless they have a warrent. So what then, are they going to drag me put of my own home, or shoot me. I would tie them up in so much litigation their grand children would need lawyers.

 

[southshore]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but it the first time I've seen it. Excerpt from a Reuters article on Yahoo.

He and other members of the family believe a man shown on television being led naked into a police car the night of the shootout was Tamerlan, and that the blurry footage, still widely available on YouTube, proves Tamerlan was captured alive. Boston police say Tamerlan was killed in a shootout, and the man seen being led into the car was a bystander who was briefly detained.

This poor bastard was probably just walking down the wrong street at the wrong time and ended up naked on friggin Youtube loaded into the back of a cruiser.


Exclusive: Boston bomb suspects' parents retreat to village, cancel U.S. trip

 

[FrugalFannie]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned but it the first time I've seen it. Excerpt from a Reuters article on Yahoo.

He and other members of the family believe a man shown on television being led naked into a police car the night of the shootout was Tamerlan, and that the blurry footage, still widely available on YouTube, proves Tamerlan was captured alive. Boston police say Tamerlan was killed in a shootout, and the man seen being led into the car was a bystander who was briefly detained.

This poor bastard was probably just walking down the wrong street at the wrong time and ended up naked on friggin Youtube loaded into the back of a cruiser.


Exclusive: Boston bomb suspects' parents retreat to village, cancel U.S. trip

It was also reported in the early days that it was his cousin Masev (spelling?). It looks like Tamerlan, build, jaw line, shape of face/head.

 

[Boman]

Well said, Finally some common sense!!!

Thank you. I am not a lamb and follow the sheep. Quite the opposite to be honest but when people here claim that they would have barked at the SWAT team trying to make sure that they did not have this terrorist in hiding I laugh. They claim they would have declared they have rights and if the police did not have a warrant they would not submit to a search.

If you did that in this extreme case I can guaranty that a search warrant would have been issued in about 2 mins and you and your family would have been led out in handcuffs.

Use common sense people is the point. This was a very much extreme case and not your typical "guy with a gun"

 

[OfficerObie59]

I enjoyed the debate but unfortunately I have to bow out and get some actual school work done.

Sme quick points:

I'll be the first one to admit that I'm not particularly familiar with the Mass constitution.....what I've seen of it seems to imply that its a fustercluck of a mess thats been butchered and ridiculed by the socialists over the years.

It has been, but the intital document is just as amazing--I'd advocate even more so--than the federal Constitution in it's breadth, structure, and thoroughness. It's also an amazing study in political science, right up there with the Federalist Papers. John Adams basically wrote the whole thing on his own.

Constitution of Massachusetts - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Yah, it's wikipedia, but I edit the page from time to time, so I know it's all true...)

Stamped official copies are available by calling the Secretary of State's office on Beacon Hill, and they'll send you copies free of charge. Every constitution-loving person should have a copy on his or her bookshelf.

I do think however that its important to point out that preambles are little more than flowery introductions and that they in no way approach the level of an enumerated power.

I think that gives them short shrift. Preambles lay the ground work for the intent of the drafters and ratifiers, depending on whether you subscribe to original meaning or original intent. Not coincidentally, that's the legal value they hold as well--they put other more operative provisions in context but are not themselves binding.

On a final point of technical correction: Remember, enumerated powers are for the Federal Government; the state's power is plenary. Now, I certainly agree some laws the state has no business passing, like outlawing the growing of oleander flowers in your basement. But unless there's a constitutional provision preventing it, the states can pass any law they want exactly because their powers aren't enumerated as Congress' powers are.

 

[OfficerObie59]

The “Body Politic” and "Public Safety" argument is sorta like advocacy of “Collective Rights” don't you think?

More like collective duties. Outlining exactly what those are is the very purpose of a constitution. A constitution's main purpose is to outline a framework of governement, not to protect individual rights.

When you say a person has a sound "constitution" you're saying they have a sound structure. And that's what a constitution is--a framework of government.

Going back to the Federal Constitution, for all the problems we have, it's the structure of our Federal government--specifically, vertical and horizontal separation of powers--that is the true reason we are far more free than most countries of the world. That's not to say we don't have problems with freedom, but any country can promise rights on paper (see e.g., Article X of the Soviet Constitution of 1936).

It's the prevention of centralized power that to me is the single most feature of the Constitution that protects freedom, followed by the 2nd Amendment.