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

[SpaceCritter]

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"

I dunno. Maybe things are different up there in Massatwoshits, but down here in the Constipation State, if I give consent to a search, then ANYTHING found becomes evidence against me. If, OTOH, they enter on exigent (but WITHOUT my consent), it's another matter entirely. And, once again, if they have exigent (or think they do), they're coming in, anyway (and we'll fight about it with lawyers later). There's a difference between denying consent and actively resisting.

 

[snd1t]

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.

I start to convulse at the mere mention of "collective" and goooberment.

Past that I couldn't agree more with the purpose of a constitution.

I will however point out that the Fed BOR and BOR in the NH Constitution are explicit limitations on gooberment and what you're references before as "plenary" powers.

The point being that gooberment at all levels is limited in its powers and the subjects/topics that it may pass regulations/laws on.

Our freedom/liberty is a function of the limitation of gooberment........unlimited gooberment = tyranny= no liberty/no freedom

 

[pdm]

Every time I hear the phrase "public safety" thrown about, I always think of Warren v. District of Columbia.

 

[rutilate]

I'm on tapatalk and can't give rep points so I'll do it here. +1 many times over. Kudos to OfficerObie for grounding the discussion in reality.

Let's re-read what the Constitution says:

Let's focus on that phase: "The right of the people to be secure in their...houses...against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated..."

If the right applies to UNREASONABLE searches and seizures, then what's the law when one might be able to articulate where the search might actually be reasonable?

Here's how the courts analyze this: They first state that any warrantless search is presumptively unreaonable, and thus protected by the warrant provision. But that presumption can be rebutted given the circumstances. Ironically, one of the timeless examples courts have classically used to demonstrate this rebuttal in the absolute is a guy running around with a bomb.

This is the million dollar question, and I think may of you are missing the question here which is this: Whether or not the events in Watertown, MA on 4/19/13 were a reasonable searches, constituting an exception to the warrant requirment. To say all warrantless searches without exception are unconstitutional is simply wrong because it reads the word "unreasonable", as well as any logical inverse conclusions right out of the amendment. Now, we can debate whether these exceptions are abused, overused, or too expansive as that all falls under the heading of what is reasonable and what is not. But to say there is not excepetion ever is wrong. And if these events do not rise to that exception, I having a hard time finding any scenario that is.

Remember, just because we want something to be unconstitutional doesn't mean that it is....

 

[not new guy]

Extreme cases require extreme reaction.

Specious statements like this, which concede the defining of "extreme" to the subjective view of the police arm of our government, are exactly the problem.

 

[Quiet]

Specious statements like this, which concede the defining of "extreme" to the subjective view of the police arm of our government, are exactly the problem.

/Thread

 

[OfficerObie59]

I start to convulse at the mere mention of "collective" and goooberment.

Past that I couldn't agree more with the purpose of a constitution.


A person should always be suspicious of the word "collective". But when you get down to it, government is a product of the collective. That's what it is.

It's how much of that collective involvement in our daily lives we're willing to put up with that's the question.

I will however point out that the Fed BOR and BOR in the NH Constitution are explicit limitations on gooberment and what you're references before as "plenary" powers.

Note I mentioned in the previous post plenary powers can be limited by other Constitutional provisions. We agree there.

The point being that gooberment at all levels is limited in its powers and the subjects/topics that it may pass regulations/laws on.

States have a positive power to pass whatever laws they wish, provided they don't violate a BOR, state or federal, or don't violate an exclusive federal power (e.g., coining money).

The Federal Government is postivetly limited to the powers in Section 8 AND negatively limited by the BOR. States are only negatively limited by Constitutional limitations, such as a state BOR.

We may not like the roles states take in furthering big government, but states have the power to do it. For example, MA can pass universal health care all it wants. There's no constitutional issue there that such an act is outside it's power.

 

[Quiet]

Hey, I thought I said: "/Thread" ;-)


Sorry.I just laugh when people do that, couldn't resist.

 

[rkwjunior]

I dunno. Maybe things are different up there in Massatwoshits, but down here in the Constipation State, if I give consent to a search, then ANYTHING found becomes evidence against me. If, OTOH, they enter on exigent (but WITHOUT my consent), it's another matter entirely. And, once again, if they have exigent (or think they do), they're coming in, anyway (and we'll fight about it with lawyers later). There's a difference between denying consent and actively resisting.

Sounds like you and other circle jerkers have something to hide??? I was suspecting that through out this thread. Why would they be rummaging through your personal belongings, their looking for a man sized object, not an 8ball.

Common sense still absent I see.

 

[noquarter]

Im not anti cop at all. I realize they have a purpose in society . I have an issue with bad cops for sure. I carry a firearm and would never point it at anything that I didnt intend to wipe off this earth. The picture the guy in the military vehicle aiming at the camera man absolutely gives me the chills. I would take that as a direct threat on my life.

Maybe im to wound up and should be ok with it cuz he was doing his job. Maybe some of them are a little too wound up and should know the difference between a civilian and a criminal , because there is a big difference.

 

[Quiet]

Sounds like you and other circle jerkers have something to hide??? I was suspecting that through out this thread. Why would they be rummaging through your personal belongings, their looking for a man sized object, not an 8ball.

Common sense still absent I see.

I'll ignore the ad hominem of the "something to hide" BS, or almost ignore it, and ask you this:

Do you think it's reasonable if the police are looking for someone who is "armed and dangerous" who may be in a neighborhood to stop cars and pull everyone out of the car and have them run to the curb with their hands over their heads so that they can search the car?

 

[rkwjunior]

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



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....

There is abosolutely no comparison, yes bad accidents happen with lots of casualties all the time. But when someone or an organization is purposely causing casualties, they have to be stopped. Future attacks can be prevented when the suspects of a mass killing are taken to justice. One can be prevented or stopped, the other can't, no one has control over the thousands of idiots driving on the road.

This really is elementary!!!

 

[not new guy]

Sounds like you and other circle jerkers have something to hide??? I was suspecting that through out this thread. Why would they be rummaging through your personal belongings, their looking for a man sized object, not an 8ball.

Common sense still absent I see.

So your definition of common sense doesn't put much stock in the 4th Amendment. Got it.

I was sure you were being sarcastic when I read "something to hide."

 

[OfficerObie59]

So your definition of common sense doesn't put much stock in the 4th Amendment. Got it.

Actually, to come to his defense on this one, the Fourth Amendment would protect you from criminal charges on that one.

The police would have aboslutely no ability to open any compartment that a person could not fit into, as it would support the claim there was a pretext to the search other than trying to find Tsarnev.

 

[SteelShooter]

So, just a hypothetical question for people in the know in this thread.

I let them come in, I am in the house alone, but I have set up a firearm in each room, not entirely hidden but not easy access for someone who doesn't know the layout, in case the scumbags decides to come in. The police see my weapons, what do you suppose their next actions will be and what do you think will happen to me? And, given those results would you have consented to a search or would you have declined?

 

[not new guy]

Actually, to come to his defense on this one, the Fourth Amendment would protect you from criminal charges on that one.

I meant stuff that's in plain sight, which is what we've been talking about throughout the thread. I don't know how rkw jumped to the conclusion that they would be rummaging around in your stuff.

 

[drgrant]

So, just a hypothetical question for people in the know in this thread.

I let them come in, I am in the house alone, but I have set up a firearm in each room, not entirely hidden but not easy access for someone who doesn't know the layout, in case the scumbags decides to come in. The police see my weapons, what do you suppose their next actions will be and what do you think will happen to me? And, given those results would you have consented to a search or would you have declined?

In MA if you are lucky you don't get prosecuted (DA might be smart enough to recognize that an illegal search isn't going to look good in court.) That doesn't matter though, you will STILL lose guns and LTC though, via suitability... happy fun ball.

ETA: Of course the response largely depends on the LEOs on scene and how awful they want to be about it. (you can probably
flip a coin on this). I've known plenty of people who got hitched up for unsecured guns and others where the LEO let them walk
despite the person openly admitting "they always stored it that way".

-Mike

 

[SteelShooter]

In MA if you are lucky you don't get prosecuted (DA might be smart enough to recognize that an illegal search isn't going to look good in court.) That doesn't matter though, you will STILL lose guns and LTC though, via suitability... happy fun ball.

ETA: Of course the response largely depends on the LEOs on scene and how awful they want to be about it. (you can probably
flip a coin on this). I've known plenty of people who got hitched up for unsecured guns and others where the LEO let them walk
despite the person openly admitting "they always stored it that way".

-Mike

So probably best case scenario is, it costs me thousands in legal fees. Knowing that, why on earth would I allow them in?

 

[Boman]

So, just a hypothetical question for people in the know in this thread.

I let them come in, I am in the house alone, but I have set up a firearm in each room, not entirely hidden but not easy access for someone who doesn't know the layout, in case the scumbags decides to come in. The police see my weapons, what do you suppose their next actions will be and what do you think will happen to me? And, given those results would you have consented to a search or would you have declined?

I would not have firearms in every room. I would have my CCW on as normal and probably tell them I had it on due to the amount of police at the scene.

 

[economist]

So probably best case scenario is, it costs me thousands in legal fees. Knowing that, why on earth would I allow them in?

Because if you don't, that will look suspicious and they will come in anyway.

All of the preceding legal discussion is interesting and clearly applicable to real life. The simple conclusion is that decades of legal precedent (and, in the case of the fourth amendment, the constitution itself) tell us that our rights are actually a function of our environment. They are not absolute, in any meaningful legal sense, and their limits are not a function of our own behavior. When a situation crosses some arbitrary line we lose our liberties for the common good (whatever that is).

So, in practice, you are as free as your environment allows. Live in a world with frequent crises and you might as well be in a police state. Live away from the same and you are much less likely to be molested by your government. Put another way, if you want to be free live in a place where government won't deem it necessary to molest you for the common good, where social crises are rare, etc.

All together this just means we have no true liberty apart from anonymity in a time of peace. Even in a society with no legally defined rights this is generally true, so what we proudly regard as special about America is, in reality, just a conceit of a people who have not experienced what happened in Watertown with any frequency.

Our legal system and precedents are wired to enable terrorism. Make a situation special enough -- create a crisis -- and liberties fall to the cold pragmatism of the moment. All to say that liberties are a comfort we imagine, but a comfort that fails us when we need it most.

 

[SteelShooter]

I would not have firearms in every room. I would have my CCW on as normal and probably tell them I had it on due to the amount of police at the scene.

yes, but I wouldn't

 

[snd1t]

There is abosolutely no comparison, yes bad accidents happen with lots of casualties all the time. But when someone or an organization is purposely causing casualties, they have to be stopped. Future attacks can be prevented when the suspects of a mass killing are taken to justice. One can be prevented or stopped, the other can't, no one has control over the thousands of idiots driving on the road.

This really is elementary!!!

Of course there's a comparison to be made here and elsewhere in the US with tragedies that happen hundreds of times a day.

Clearly the outcome of some of the events I've referenced have similar outcomes wrt deaths and injuries so what remains to distinguish these crimes from what happened at the marathon?

The ONLY difference is the degree to which the perpetrator(s) in the various examples INTENDED to harm those people and damage/destroy property.

If you're not outraged at the murders/deaths/injuries that happen every day around you then clearly it must not be the harm to people and property that you're upset with but rather your outrage is at the degree to which two scumbags INTENDED to do harm.

There's a trial in process of a Dr who has been charged with the death of 1 patient and 7 children who were actually born alive despite botched abortion attempts.....clearly this scumbag intended to murder these children but where's your outrage at what is clear INTENT to harm the most helpless?

And lets not have some moron chime in and try to explain to us all that these infants who were breathing, crying and suffering at the hand of this monster were not actually children who deserved to be protected from scumbags like this animal

 

[OfficerObie59]

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....

If you're not outraged at the murders/deaths/injuries that happen every day around you then clearly it must not be the harm to people and property that you're upset with but rather your outrage is at the degree to which two scumbags INTENDED to do harm.

I for the life of me don't understand this line of arguementation. What point are you trying to prove? This all seems to me like one big non-sequitur.

And what is wrong with an emotional reaction to an event of violence? Is that not the very reason we have a criminal justice system? We long ago chose to delegate to government the emotionally-influenced retribution exacted via lex talionis and vigilantism so that the very rights of the accused are protected, and that he is not swinging from a tree before he recieves due process.

The reason parties who intentionally commit acts of death and destruction need to be swifty brought to justice is rather simple: They're far, far more likely to do it again and when they do, they're more likely to maximize the efficiency of their acts. Also, someone who intends to harm others does so because he wants to. Indeed Blackstone is famously quoted as saying "In order for there to be a crime, there must be vicious will." That's why crimes with lesser degrees of mens rea (think negligence) and strict liability crimes are so controversial.

The difference can be seen not just in our anger to events like this, but also in our laws which provide for harsher punishments when there is a greater degree of mens rea. Note we use the term "greater" because we feel there is far more culpability in the acts for someone who does them purposefully.
Additionally, the anger of the populace must be tempered. Indeed, I think many of us look at accidental mass casualty events with a greater degree of sadness, though the level of anger is generally commensurate with the level of mens rea.

 

[rkwjunior]

I'll ignore the ad hominem of the "something to hide" BS, or almost ignore it, and ask you this:

Do you think it's reasonable if the police are looking for someone who is "armed and dangerous" who may be in a neighborhood to stop cars and pull everyone out of the car and have them run to the curb with their hands over their heads so that they can search the car?

Only with the car owners consent!!! Hands above the head is necasssary until the police know ur not a threat, its for their own protection, but everyone here seems to think it's over the top, try putting yourself in their shoes for once, their are a lot of a**h***s outthere they have to deal with, and no one takes that into consideration, you'd just rather be a pain in the ass. You want people to appreciate you at your job why can't you appreciate theirs, besides there job is alot more dangerous than most of ours because they have to deal with murderes etc etc on a daily basis. Everyone one just thinks their out to get you. i think those are the people who are usually GUILTY.

And i'm not surprised your ignoring my "something to hide BS " that explains everything.

 

[rkwjunior]

Of course there's a comparison to be made here and elsewhere in the US with tragedies that happen hundreds of times a day.

Clearly the outcome of some of the events I've referenced have similar outcomes wrt deaths and injuries so what remains to distinguish these crimes from what happened at the marathon?

The ONLY difference is the degree to which the perpetrator(s) in the various examples INTENDED to harm those people and damage/destroy property.

If you're not outraged at the murders/deaths/injuries that happen every day around you then clearly it must not be the harm to people and property that you're upset with but rather your outrage is at the degree to which two scumbags INTENDED to do harm.

There's a trial in process of a Dr who has been charged with the death of 1 patient and 7 children who were actually born alive despite botched abortion attempts.....clearly this scumbag intended to murder these children but where's your outrage at what is clear INTENT to harm the most helpless?

And lets not have some moron chime in and try to explain to us all that these infants who were breathing, crying and suffering at the hand of this monster were not actually children who deserved to be protected from scumbags like this animal

Clearly an accident in not an INTENT to hurt someone, Thats what makes it an accident and can't be compared. Drunk driver don't purposley hop into ther car with INTENT to kill, not saying its right. Terrorist with INTENT to kill and who have already killed and plan to kill more while running freely about a neigborhood possibly aremd and dangerous need to be stopped even if it takes an Army. Big difference.

And if your talking about Abortion we are deffinetly talkin about 2 different things, but still the dr needs to be brought to justice, but there is no need for a manhunt in that situation. again your talkin about one extreme to another.

 

[snd1t]

I for the life of me don't understand this line of arguementation. What point are you trying to prove? This all seems to me like one big non-sequitur.

And what is wrong with an emotional reaction to an event of violence? Is that not the very reason we have a criminal justice system? We long ago chose to delegate to government the emotionally-influenced retribution exacted via lex talionis and vigilantism so that the very rights of the accused are protected, and that he is not swinging from a tree before he recieves due process.

The reason parties who intentionally commit acts of death and destruction need to be swifty brought to justice is rather simple: They're far, far more likely to do it again and when they do, they're more likely to maximize the efficiency of their acts. Also, someone who intends to harm others does so because he wants to. Indeed Blackstone is famously quoted as saying "In order for there to be a crime, there must be vicious will." That's why crimes with lesser degrees of mens rea (think negligence) and strict liability crimes are so controversial.

The difference can be seen not just in our anger to events like this, but also in our laws which provide for harsher punishments when there is a greater degree of mens rea. Note we use the term "greater" because we feel there is far more culpability in the acts for someone who does them purposefully.
Additionally, the anger of the populace must be tempered. Indeed, I think many of us look at accidental mass casualty events with a greater degree of sadness, though the level of anger is generally commensurate with the level of mens rea.

The point is that as a society we pick and choose what to become outraged over over purely emotional reasons.

The rule of law and our legal system is SUPPOSED to be based upon demonstrable facts not feelings.

The actions that our police take are also supposed to be based upon facts not feelings.

What we witnessed in the search for a bleeding 19 year old was a purely emotional reaction that resulted in the loss of liberty and trampling of the civil rights of thousands of people.

We are all less free as a result

We are all in more danger in the future because some moron in gooberment is going to look at door to door search as a possible solution the next time something happens and people (citizens and police) are going to be killed/injured and property damaged/destroyed.

The militarization of our police and the blatent disregard of civil rights must end or very soon we will witness a very ugly tyrannical state and wonder how the fark we got there.

 

[snd1t]

Only with the car owners consent!!! Hands above the head is necasssary until the police know ur not a threat, its for their own protection, but everyone here seems to think it's over the top, try putting yourself in their shoes for once, their are a lot of a**h***s outthere they have to deal with, and no one takes that into consideration, you'd just rather be a pain in the ass. You want people to appreciate you at your job why can't you appreciate theirs, besides there job is alot more dangerous than most of ours because they have to deal with murderes etc etc on a daily basis. Everyone one just thinks their out to get you. i think those are the people who are usually GUILTY.

And i'm not surprised your ignoring my "something to hide BS " that explains everything.

Do Citizens serve the state/police or does the state/police serve citizens.

Seems to me you have things mixed up unless you think that we are subjects to be ruled instead of free citizens.

 

[snd1t]

Clearly an accident in not an INTENT to hurt someone, Thats what makes it an accident and can't be compared. Drunk driver don't purposley hop into ther car with INTENT to kill, not saying its right. Terrorist with INTENT to kill and who have already killed and plan to kill more while running freely about a neigborhood possibly aremd and dangerous need to be stopped even if it takes an Army. Big difference.

And if your talking about Abortion we are deffinetly talkin about 2 different things, but still the dr needs to be brought to justice, but there is no need for a manhunt in that situation. again your talkin about one extreme to another.

What you call an "Accident" is in most cases an abdication of personal responsibility

These aren't "Accidents".....Every drunk/high/exhausted person that gets behind the wheel does so with full knowledge that they are putting others lives and their property at risk

As to the abortion issue please read up.......Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Sparks Media Debate you and the media are not paying attention.

Regarding the "do anything to stop the bleeding 19 year old"

May I remind you that the police state has failed every time and citizens have succeeded nearly every time.

Who halted the use of the 4th plane on 9/11.....Citizens

Who found the 19 yr old bomber last week? A Citizen

Same with the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the failed times square bomber and a raft of other instances.

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that the police state response is not only a trampling of citizens rights but its inept, ineffective and extremely costly.

 

[rkwjunior]

Do Citizens serve the state/police or does the state/police serve citizens.

Seems to me you have things mixed up unless you think that we are subjects to be ruled instead of free citizens.

I will serve the police when I think I can help, I will not serve them if they don't have a good reason, you have to pick us battles. I choose to not act like their always bothering me when for the most part their doing their job.

Besides, we're all "law abiding" citizens here, what's the big deal!!!!

 

[rkwjunior]

What you call an "Accident" is in most cases an abdication of personal responsibility

These aren't "Accidents".....Every drunk/high/exhausted person that gets behind the wheel does so with full knowledge that they are putting others lives and their property at risk

As to the abortion issue please read up.......Abortion Doctor's Murder Trial Sparks Media Debate you and the media are not paying attention.

Regarding the "do anything to stop the bleeding 19 year old"

May I remind you that the police state has failed every time and citizens have succeeded nearly every time.

Who halted the use of the 4th plane on 9/11.....Citizens

Who found the 19 yr old bomber last week? A Citizen

Same with the shoe bomber, the underwear bomber, the failed times square bomber and a raft of other instances.

The point that you refuse to acknowledge is that the police state response is not only a trampling of citizens rights but its inept, ineffective and extremely costly.

So ur saying there's no need for police??
And if u think the marathon bombings is the same a drunk driving deaths, u are ignorant and just refuse to believe the truth.