-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
Boston Marathon Terrorists Engaged.
- Thread starter FlyingOnFumes
- Start date
This kid is going to catch one hell of a beating in prison. I can't wait.
Dogpatch09
Member
Hiding in a boat, on dry land...
....In Watertown!
I hope he gets treated like any other piece of criminal scum should be in this country. Interrogated in the presence of a lawyer, evidence collected against him, and tried by a jury of his peers. We have to be careful about what rights we give up during this interminable "War onTerror." You might have need of some of them later.
Imagine calling your insurance company and trying to file a claim for damage to your boat after a firefight erupts with the bomber hiding in it???
http://gma.yahoo.com/support-replace-boat-ruined-bomber-standoff-165345489--abc-news-topstories.html
I can image the different gov't agencies trying to absolve themselves of culpability by saying it wasn't their bullets....
Of course if it was federal LEOs who caused the damage, they won't be able to repair the boat due to sequestration; it's not mission essential!!
http://gma.yahoo.com/support-replace-boat-ruined-bomber-standoff-165345489--abc-news-topstories.html
I can image the different gov't agencies trying to absolve themselves of culpability by saying it wasn't their bullets....
Of course if it was federal LEOs who caused the damage, they won't be able to repair the boat due to sequestration; it's not mission essential!!
Spekkio
He bowls overhand.
Boston and its suburbs already gave up their 4th amendment rights to get this guy. Ironically a private citizen found him shortly after they were allowed out again.
Kudos to the citizen who found him and the LEOs who went into harm's way to get him, but the macro strategy of how he was apprehended (which ultimately didn't work) and how we were so willing to do away with our usual way of doing business needs a serious look. I fear we are paving the way for any copycat who wants to create just this kind of response.
I wonder how this would've played out in a more gun-friendly state vice Mass.
What I find amazing is not that the boat is full of bullet holes, but that the 'suspect' is not full of holes!?!?
Listen to the gunfire in the below video that goes on for 10 seconds from a number of different weapons. Impossible to tell how many rounds were fired.
I think the suspect has a few holes in him, including one through the neck.
I thought his bullet wounds were from the earlier gunfight where he ran over his brother to escape.
Lots of agreement here. And why not. Who doesn't want to preserve our civil rights? But what are we agreeing with? I don't agree that he should be treated just like a common criminal (scum or not). He didn't steal a car or sell an oz. of pot. The implication here, based on the link, is that our civil liberties have been dangerously eroded. I disagree. The linked article bemoans the questioning of terror suspects before Mirandizing. Is that really such an erosion of civil rights? Notwithstanding the "public safety exception" the Supremes have carved out of Miranda, there are many times people are questioned without Miranda being read to them. Happens every day. But to go back to terror suspects and the public safety exception, there is NO threat to the suspect’s rights. The DOJ memo concerning questions under the exception states:
[2] For these purposes, an operational terrorist is an arrestee who is reasonably believed to be either a high-level member of an international terrorist group; or an operative who has personally conducted or attempted to conduct a terrorist operation that involved risk to life; or an individual knowledgeable about operational details of a pending terrorist operation.
[3] The Supreme Court held in New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649 (1984), that if law enforcement officials engage in custodial interrogation of an individual that is "reasonable prompted by a concern for the public safety," any statements the individual provides in the course of such interrogation shall not be inadmissible in any criminal proceeding on the basis that the warnings described in Miranda v. Arizona 384 U.S. 436 (1966), were not provided. The court noted that this exception to the Miranda rule is a narrow one and that "in each case it will be circumscribed by the [public safety] exigency which justifies it." 467 U.S. at 657.
I don't see what all the fuss about pre Mirandzing is about. The exception is very narrow. It won't apply to you if you accidentally acquire stolen goods on Craigslist or get into a bar fight or are questioned after shooting a home intruder. It can save lives whether information is gathered about an emanate or related attack or intel that prevents future attacks. And most important, the suspect’s rights are not violated. The information provided CAN NOT be used against him. So, at it's very core, the exception is all about saving lives, not railroading people, even terrorists. I am all for keeping a eye on a civil liberties. On turning a fair and discriminating eye on this subject, and setting aside the bleeding heart left wing angst, I see nothing to be afraid of.
How so? Sea lawyer are ye (imagine parrot on my shoulder)? The text of the Fourth reads: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Warrant-less searches have been found constitutional in a number of cases over decades. They typically involve exigent circumstances, emergency situations, hot pursuit, public safety, etc. Any of those exceptions could apply to Boston/Watertown. Clearly people can disagree about what is unreasonable or an emergency situation. In this case, I think you will find very very few residence of Boston or Watertown who were affected by the searches claiming constitutional abuse. You would probably not find a judge who would find an abuse. On the off chance you found that judge and the case of the marathon bomber searches got to the Supreme Court, based on tons of precedent, you wouldn't see them agreeing these searches were unconstitutional.
I never heard of a citizen denying the police the opportunity to search for the bomber.
If you allow the police in, then the 4th Amendment doesn't apply.
Either way, it didn't matter. The police had permission to search home due to the threat to public safety.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...ertown_door_to_door_search_by_police_for.html
I never heard of the police search the home of the boat owner prior to him finding the bomber hiding in there. I heard the police were searching garages and basements, so you would think they would have seen a cut tarp on a boat with blood in the vicinity and investigated it if they actually searched that home.