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

Status
Not open for further replies.

rkwjunior

NES Member
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
Joined
Jan 9, 2012
Messages
2,797
Likes
483
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.

+1000 I just can't believe his train of thought. Its like we're talking about apples and he's talking about oranges.

He has to be doing on purpose.
 

KBCraig

NES Member
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
12,757
Likes
8,905
Location
Granite State of Mind
The point is that as a society we pick and choose what to become outraged over over purely emotional reasons.

How's the old saying go? Thirty dead in a bus wreck is news. Three hundred dead in a war is a statistic. One child in a well is a tragedy, as long as it's a child in the U.S.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
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.
I agree the rule of law and our legal system are indeed based in demonstrable facts.

However, at it's very core law and criminal justice takes emotion into account and attempts to temper it. Which is one of the reasons why we consider more heinous and assign harsher punishments to crimes with greater degrees of mens rea. We delegate to government our need for retribution in order to ensure the process is carried out in a slow, careful, and methodical manner.

Reacting more emotionally to an intentional bombing than a bus accident is rather natrual and a result of the human condition. Law attempts to temper this response.

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
"Purely emotional reaction"? Not quite. The reaction is based in pragmatism of preventing future harm. You're failing to consider that people who intend to commit murder and mayhem do so with an attempt to maximize that result, and are far more likely to do it again if given the oppurtunity.

The Fung Wah bus driver who accidentally smashes his bus into a bridge abuttment doesn't have the same death wish for his passengers. If he knew with absolute certainty his continued actions would kill everyone else on board, I guarantee he's going to change whatever it is he's doing. The very common chord in reckless acts is that "it will never happen to me". The common chord in intentional acts is "Let's giterdun."

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.
I generally agree, though I think this is disconnected to your argument.
 

drgrant

Moderator
NES Member
Rating - 100%
61   0   0
Joined
Mar 21, 2006
Messages
74,947
Likes
44,946
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.


There's always an emotional response, to some degree or another. We've codified it into law to limit/temper the level of retardation it reaches- so that the public's/victims' feelings are taken into account without compromising the rights of the accused.

If these incidents weren't emotional at some level or another, nobody would care. Think about it for a minute- if people were all nihilists then there would be no need for the criminal justice system. Someone does something "bad" and the victims would just ignore it and move on with their lives.

-Mike
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
I guess not all cops are so eager to blatantly violate an entire community's Constitutional Rights like you guys are:
Thomas Nolan, who served for 27 years in the Boston police department, says he commends first responders for their overall handling of the bombing and investigation, but he condemns the armed house-to-house searches that took place in Watertown.

“We don’t have house-to-house searches in the United States,” Nolan told Here & Now’s Robin Young. “I don’t know that consent across-the-board was freely given. And consent that’s obtained looking down the barrel of a machine gun is never freely given.

The public should ask for answers about who authorized the searches of homes, and on what legal basis, Nolan said.

“I think that’s a fair question to ask, so that the public can have answers to the question as to what was the basis, under the law, that this search – home after home, block after block – was conducted,” he said.
[Emphasis mine.]

A Closer Look At The Search For Suspect 2 | Here & Now
 
Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Feb 18, 2007
Messages
7,658
Likes
750
Location
Live Free or Die
The problem with actions taken based on heightened emotions is it leads to incremental losses of liberty. Yes the root of law might lie in the emotional response or anticipated response to a crime against someone. Yet the best time to make new law is not "in the wake" of incidents, in fact that is the worst time! Lawmakers know that if they get bills out there quick, there will be public support short term because of emotional response. If they wait, support is not always there. This is a good first indicator that the law violates rights or is not needed.

I believe in almost all cases, whatever crime was committed was already illegal in one way or another. Incremental loss of our free and open society is not the answer.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,468
Likes
12,986
I agree the rule of law and our legal system are indeed based in demonstrable facts.

However, at it's very core law and criminal justice takes emotion into account and attempts to temper it. Which is one of the reasons why we consider more heinous and assign harsher punishments to crimes with greater degrees of mens rea. We delegate to government our need for retribution in order to ensure the process is carried out in a slow, careful, and methodical manner.

Reacting more emotionally to an intentional bombing than a bus accident is rather natrual and a result of the human condition. Law attempts to temper this response.

Is that why we USED to be told that the courts are "Blind"?

We have lots of laws that have been passed during a fit of insanity/emotion....look at NY's recent gun ban as an excellent example.

But despite that the enforcement of those laws and application of penalities by the courts are based purely upon facts......not feelings.

Our laws and penalties are written to be quantifiable.......emotions are by their very nature not quantifiable.




"Purely emotional reaction"? Not quite. The reaction is based in pragmatism of preventing future harm. You're failing to consider that people who intend to commit murder and mayhem do so with an attempt to maximize that result, and are far more likely to do it again if given the oppurtunity.

Had the reaction been "pragmatic" we wouldn't have seen 5+ thousand LEO's dressed up as .mil.

There was nothing pragmatic about the response at all......it was "shock and awe" rather than an efficient and COST EFFECTIVE application of resources.

We had a bleeding kid on foot.......a couple of dogs trained to track and the kid would have been caught in an hour...enforce a perimeter if you're really concerned the bleeding kid might actually find wheels.

The door to door search was far and above the LEAST pragmatic, least effective and most dangerous (to citizens and officers).

The Fung Wah bus driver who accidentally smashes his bus into a bridge abuttment doesn't have the same death wish for his passengers. If he knew with absolute certainty his continued actions would kill everyone else on board, I guarantee he's going to change whatever it is he's doing. The very common chord in reckless acts is that "it will never happen to me". The common chord in intentional acts is "Let's giterdun."

Take any example you want.

Accidents are truly a rare occurrence.

They are nearly always caused by willful acts by drivers/other actors,

We choose to text, drink coffee, take prescription drugs, drink alcohol and a raft of other things that we KNOW will cause accidents............these are willful acts and it matters not that some think they can beat the odds....they willingly choose to do it anyway.

We try to explain these events away as "accidents" but the fact of the matter is that they are willful acts with known consequences.

Do you think anyone is more/less outraged/hurt if their husband/wife/son/daughter is killed by a terrorist versus a mugger or a drunk driver?

Nope......

The point at the end of the day is that most people have swallowed the hook thrown out by politicians and they falsely believe that somehow being killed/hurt by a terrorist is somehow scarier/worse/more of a threat than a drunk driver or common criminal and that our response must also somehow be more severe with little or no consideration of the consequences or the crimes committed.

So many people are so outraged about the 4(?) people killed and 200 injured to varying degrees but where's the outrage over the 210 people who were murdered, the 1745 that were raped or the 21,000 that were assaulted by criminals in 2010 for example

FBI ? Table 5

Based on the stats its pretty clear that there is an immanent threat but we don't see the police playing .mil and going door to door searching for these criminals do we?

Of course not.

Fact of the matter is that so long as politicians react like they did and we allow it the terrorists have won.
 
Last edited:

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
I think maybe operations like this ought to be required to have embedded videographers, helmet cams and/or news film crews watching each and every operation.

FFS anytime they enter an inmate's cell the tape it for everyone's benefit. I guess the inmates are more valuable than residents.
 
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
25,845
Likes
26,383
Boston Manhunt ?Missed the Boat? as Police Skip Street - Bloomberg

Boston Manhunt ‘Missed the Boat’ as Police Skip Street

Sue Lund lives about five blocks from where police engaged in a wild shootout April 19 with the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects and about eight doors down from where the one who escaped alive was found 18 hours later.

Yet, during the all-day manhunt, she said police never searched her Franklin Street home or garden shed in Watertown, Massachusetts. Ten other neighbors had the same story and said they didn’t know of any homes that had been searched on Franklin, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was discovered by someone on the street about 30 minutes after an area lockdown was lifted.

“A lot of people’s lives were put in danger because someone in charge wasn’t doing his job,” said Lund, 61, as she stood on the wide front porch of her Victorian house. “People could have been killed because after the lockdown ended everyone came streaming out of their houses and suddenly we were in a combat zone.”

It has been more than a week since police were hailed as heroes in Boston, eliciting cheers and hugs in the aftermath of the death of one suspect and capture of the other in the April 15 bombing that killed three and injured 260. As more details of the bombing and the subsequent search for Tamerlan Tsarnaev and his younger brother Dzhokhar emerge, some residents and officials are expressing skepticism about the police work.


Deninger's take:

Ok, The Cops Are Incompetent. I'm Supposed To Be Shocked? in [Market-Ticker]

So let's see if we got this right.

The cops unconstitutionally locked down a 20-block area. This was not a case of "hot pursuit" where a valid exception exists to the 4th Amendment -- they had no idea where the bad guy was, other than the general area where they saw him last. That does not give license for what was done in Watertown.

But then to add to that they were both incompetent in that they didn't search a street inside the perimeter, they lied about the fact that the boat was inside the perimeter and in addition the cops fired without having acquired a target and without having taken fire themselves when they shot up the boat.

The defendant had no weapon; he clearly did not shoot at the cops first.

In addition remember that the cops claimed the boat was outside of the perimeter. That, it turns out, was a lie.

How many lies do you get for free if you're a cop?

Something might have spooked the police, who fired 30 or more rounds and lobbed flash grenades at the boat on the trailer. The burst of bullets shredded the hull and hit neighboring houses, residents said.

That's a crime -- by the police.

Law enforcement is only allowed to use deadly force to defend themselves. They are not allowed to shoot without having a lawful target to shoot at. The alleged perpetrator was unarmed and not moving; hell, he was barely alive! He therefore could not have provoked the more than 30 rounds and flash-bang grenades that were fired at the boat and both shredded it and hit neighboring houses.

If you or I started popping off rounds at someone's boat and/or hitting their house without having an identified and lawful defensive target for our shots we would be arrested and tried for a whole host of crimes. In most states (including Florida) it is a criminal offense, for example to shoot across a paved road or over or through an occupied dwelling except when necessary in self-defense.

Never mind the fact that it is utterly common for the cops to fire dozens or even hundreds of rounds and hit nothing (or close to it!) that they were allegedly aiming at. Examples abound including the two Asian ladies in California during the Dorner fiasco and the member of New York's "finest" who used his partner as a human shield and STILL failed to hit the alleged perp, striking several innocent bystanders instead.

The law is not different for the cops in this regard than it is for ordinary people.

I HAVE ONE SIMPLE QUESTION: WHERE ARE THE DAMNED INDICTMENTS?

And finally, since I'm in a snarky mood this evening, I have one more question:

Why should the people respect law enforcement when law enforcement officers refuse to respect the law themselves and nobody will prosecute them for their violations of same?
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
Is that why we USED to be told that the courts are "Blind"?

We have lots of laws that have been passed during a fit of insanity/emotion....look at NY's recent gun ban as an excellent example.

But despite that the enforcement of those laws and application of penalities by the courts are based purely upon facts......not feelings.

Our laws and penalties are written to be quantifiable.......emotions are by their very nature not quantifiable.
You're totally missing my point.

The laws in their passage have emotion taken into account. Otherwise, how do you explain levels of mens rea? Otherwise anyone who committed any act resulting in death would face the same penalties.

That's a wholly different issue than comprehensive public policy issues addressed in a fit of passion without regard to facts. And as for your NY example, the law wasn't passed using the emotion of law makers--Democrats in Albany used the emotion of the moment to further their political agenda.

Had the reaction been "pragmatic" we wouldn't have seen 5+ thousand LEO's dressed up as .mil.

There was nothing pragmatic about the response at all......it was "shock and awe" rather than an efficient and COST EFFECTIVE application of resources.

We had a bleeding kid on foot.......a couple of dogs trained to track and the kid would have been caught in an hour...enforce a perimeter if you're really concerned the bleeding kid might actually find wheels.

The door to door search was far and above the LEAST pragmatic, least effective and most dangerous (to citizens and officers).
Perhaps, though note I said "based in pargamatism". You're conflating the response with the motivation. I was speaking only to the latter.

Take any example you want.

Accidents are truly a rare occurrence.

They are nearly always caused by willful acts by drivers/other actors,

We choose to text, drink coffee, take prescription drugs, drink alcohol and a raft of other things that we KNOW will cause accidents............these are willful acts and it matters not that some think they can beat the odds....they willingly choose to do it anyway.

We try to explain these events away as "accidents" but the fact of the matter is that they are willful acts with known consequences.
So is it your opinion reaction to all "willful" acts (a term that combines some negligence, all recklessness, and all knowingly and purposeful conduct and combines them into one) should be punished in the courts the same way? Should the driver of a bus be subjected to the same punishment as a terrorist bomber?

Do you think anyone is more/less outraged/hurt if their husband/wife/son/daughter is killed by a terrorist versus a mugger or a drunk driver?

Nope......
Er...yes.

Your example of a drunk driver uses one of the highest levels of non-intentional mens rea there is to blur the distinction.

Let's use a simple intersection t-bone accident resulting in death with no other circumstances other than a failure to yield right of way. I think a family is more able to wrap their head around that as a terrible accident than as a senseless act of violence for violences' sake.
The point at the end of the day is that most people have swallowed the hook thrown out by politicians and they falsely believe that somehow being killed/hurt by a terrorist is somehow scarier/worse/more of a threat than a drunk driver or common criminal and that our response must also somehow be more severe with little or no consideration of the consequences or the crimes committed.
When will you at least acknowlege that someone, possibly armed with bombs, who intends to inflict mass casulaties upon the populus is a far greater danger to the public than a speeding bus driver, a herion addict out B&Eing cars, or a guy who just put his fist into another guy's face? Random violence is a rarity. And random violence on this scale, far more so.

You have a person who 1) intends to 2) and presumably has the ability to 3) randomly inflict 4) mass casulties. And you have a defined area where you know he might be. Explain to me when all these factors line up again with regards to the bus driver?

Your tragic accident comparisons are silly. Intent matters. It is THE factor. To dispute that is to dispell nearly one thousand years of common law.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
You guys are so outing yourselves.
God forbid anyone disagree and buck the trend. I wouldn't want to no longer be part of the NES's cool kids club.

I guess anyone who disagrees shold return to a corner so all you guys can return to your ideological echo chamber and anti-cop circle jerk.

Again, there's a sad irony when people who claim to be libertarians criticize others for having a free mind.
 
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
25,845
Likes
26,383
God forbid anyone disagree and buck the trend. I wouldn't want to no longer be part of the NES's cool kids club.

I guess anyone who disagrees shold return to a corner so all you guys can return to your ideological echo chamber and anti-cop circle jerk.

Again, there's a sad irony when people who claim to be libertarians criticize others for having a free mind.

The more people talking about it and the more different viewpoints the better. I'm in favor of everyone MMQBing this whole situation to thr greatest extent possible. Figure out exactly what happened, why it happened, and come to (hopefully) the correct conclusions as to what went wrong where, so that any mistakes can hopefully be avoided next time. That means critiquing the hell out of the police work. Fairly. Some things were done well, other things were done poorly. ID both, assess them, and move on.
 

jpk

Rating - 100%
3   0   0
Joined
Jan 5, 2013
Messages
16,468
Likes
12,986
God forbid anyone disagree and buck the trend. I wouldn't want to no longer be part of the NES's cool kids club.

I guess anyone who disagrees shold return to a corner so all you guys can return to your ideological echo chamber and anti-cop circle jerk.

Again, there's a sad irony when people who claim to be libertarians criticize others for having a free mind.

I'd prefer we maintain the adult conversation and I suspect you would agree.

Anyone that can't post without personal attack and name calling should refrain from posting.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
I'd prefer we maintain the adult conversation and I suspect you would agree.
I think you I have been doing so over the past few days.

From the beginning, I never expect you to agree with me, but if you understand my point--whether you agree with it or not--that's cool. My arguments can be close hitting and harsh, but I'll never label you or use peer pressure to squash you from even giving your opinion.
Anyone that can't post without personal attack and name calling should refrain from posting.
I so sick of this "outing yourself" BS.

If you disagree with the content and someone's ideas, criticize the idea. These "outing youself" comments attempt to squelch the discussion and debate by threatening personal ridcule and the outcasting of dissenters who dare not tow the line.
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
The more people talking about it and the more different viewpoints the better. I'm in favor of everyone MMQBing this whole situation to thr greatest extent possible. Figure out exactly what happened, why it happened, and come to (hopefully) the correct conclusions as to what went wrong where, so that any mistakes can hopefully be avoided next time. That means critiquing the hell out of the police work. Fairly. Some things were done well, other things were done poorly. ID both, assess them, and move on.

Agreed.

I have no issue with criticism of police work or conduct. I have an issue when people want to criticize police work or conduct while attempting to suppress the facts and opinions that are contrary to their view.
 

Jsfitzgerald85

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Aug 4, 2010
Messages
8,812
Likes
1,254
Location
New Bedford
If the only way to catch the suspects was to violate the rights of the innocent then the tactics need to change. We cannot call ourselves a free society if our rights are violated especially for actions we didnt commit.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Aug 29, 2010
Messages
1,079
Likes
169
Location
circle the grid
I so sick of this "outing yourself" BS.

"Outing" means different things depending on the subject/discussion.

In THIS thread, I take it to mean, "it shows those who give up freedom for a little security something something blah blah" after they proclaim to honor/respect the Constitution/BoR.

As compared to a car topic, "outing" may show that, some "tough guy" drives a Prius or wear pink shorts and flip-flops after Labor-day.

In a firearm topic, "outing" may show that, some don't know jack about a firearm after they proclaim to be an expert.

In a political topic, "outing" can show/mean, one is an hypocrite, based on their former post/support/views of an issue.
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
"Outing" means different things depending on the subject/discussion.

In THIS thread, I take it to mean, "it shows those who give up freedom for a little security something something blah blah" after they proclaim to honor/respect the Constitution/BoR.

As compared to a car topic, "outing" may show that, some "tough guy" drives a Prius or wear pink shorts and flip-flops after Labor-day.

In a firearm topic, "outing" may show that, some don't know jack about a firearm after they proclaim to be an expert.

In a political topic, "outing" can show/mean, one is an hypocrite, based on their former post/support/views of an issue.

So which one is it in this context and what's the motivation of doing so?

Answer: To silence dissention by suggesting the dissenters might no longer be considered part of the club.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
8,592
Likes
4,093
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
This still bothers me... I mean a bunch... Like I think about it every day. How could those citizens just let that happen to them? ....and why on gods good earth would the police see any value in such activity? Frisking people as they are dragged out of their homes? What - do they think the terrorist was hiding in their pockets? Pointing guns at the young end elderly alike as they were dragged into the streets... Searching in people's bureaus, drawers, closets.... What - did they think the terrorist was hiding in someone underwear drawer... That is F*cking bullsh1t!

I don't buy into the "police had to protect themselves" argument. It does not help them protect themselves by dragging innocent civilians at gun point into the streets. It does not help the police protect themselves to go rummaging through the private property of law abiding innocent citizens - even if they are sheeple for letting it happen. And unless someone is being arrested - no cop has no god damned business putting his hands on anyone.

This paramilitary action is probable the most egregious and blatant violation of the 4th amendment in our country's history. Its also a violation of the 8th amendment. If your innocent and being dragged by police from your home and into the streets at gunpoint - you're being punished - and in a cruel and unusual way..
 
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
May 3, 2009
Messages
5,442
Likes
1,896
How could those citizens just let that happen to them? ....and why on gods good earth would the police see any value in such activity? Frisking people as they are dragged out of their homes? What - do they think the terrorist was hiding in their pockets? Pointing guns at the young end elderly alike as they were dragged into the streets... Searching in people's bureaus, drawers, closets.... What - did they think the terrorist was hiding in someone underwear drawer... That is F*cking bullsh1t!

And the evidence that all happened is what, exactly?

Again, if we return to the video, there is some claims that home was subject to a search warrant. All else I've heard was that the police showed up, asked people "Is there anyone in your home and would you like us to take a look?" People said no, cops went away. All this ranting and raving, and I've still yet to see hard evidence that 1) there were contested, forceful entries of private dwellings and 2) the actions in the video occured warrantlessly.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 18, 2012
Messages
8,592
Likes
4,093
Location
A Fair Haven in an unfair state.
And the evidence that all happened is what, exactly?

Again, if we return to the video, there is some claims that home was subject to a search warrant. All else I've heard was that the police showed up, asked people "Is there anyone in your home and would you like us to take a look?" People said no, cops went away. All this ranting and raving, and I've still yet to see hard evidence that 1) there were contested, forceful entries of private dwellings and 2) the actions in the video occured warrantlessly.

I don't know man. Were these houses subject to search warrants too:
Boston Door To Door Searches - Raw Video - YouTube

What about this:
Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts - YouTube

There is a LOT of corroboration in evidence out there - if you want to find it.... The news report above makes it very clear what the police were doing. They were "rescuing" people from their own homes. If no one was home when they arrived - well then they were only following orders - and searched without permission or warrant anyway. Then you weren't allowed back into your own home after that...

There is no lawful justification for such police action..... none.....
 
Last edited:
Rating - 100%
6   0   0
Joined
May 7, 2011
Messages
140
Likes
7
This is what it reminded me of......especially after they caught him.

"So this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause."

Such was ominously stated by the fictional character Padmé Amidala (Natalie Portman) in "Star Wars III: The Revenge of the Sith" as she watched Emperor Palpatine tell a cheering Senate that he had taken all power away from them to form a Galactic Empire (h/t NBer bradbenj5952).
 

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
God forbid anyone disagree and buck the trend. I wouldn't want to no longer be part of the NES's cool kids club.

I guess anyone who disagrees shold return to a corner so all you guys can return to your ideological echo chamber and anti-cop circle jerk.

Again, there's a sad irony when people who claim to be libertarians criticize others for having a free mind.
Actually, I thought the cops did a great professional job. They did what they were told to do, and with the exception of launching a volley of a gazillion rounds at an unidentified unarmed suspect were very professional.

So which one is it in this context and what's the motivation of doing so?

Answer: To silence dissention by suggesting the dissenters might no longer be considered part of the club.
Actually my reason for saying that was to underline the unbelievable and totally unexpected attitude that you were espousing regarding the appropriateness and constitutionality of imposing martial law on a million people and searching hundreds of homes with 12 man swat teams and high caliber armored vehicle mounted weaponry in search of one guy. I was flummoxed and not trying to be insulting, and I apologize.
 
Last edited:

Quiet

Banned
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 31, 2013
Messages
9,698
Likes
1,810
Location
2122 N. Clark St.
The problem lies here, maybe, is that you're looking at this from a cop's perspective. Maybe not.


My dad drilled into my head this oft-repeated phrase to sum up American jurisprudence:

"Better 1,000 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongfully convicted."

I guess today that needs to be slightly modified to be:

"Better 1,000,000 innocent people be detained and thousands searched than one suspect remain at large."

Pretty sad, huh?
 
Rating - 100%
63   0   0
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
25,845
Likes
26,383
I wonder how a similar set of circumstances would have played out in the Houston area, for example. Would the public have been more or less cooperative? Would law enforcement have taken the same approach? Would there have been cheering at the end?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom