MIT Shooting

[Grahambo]

Sorry for telling the truth. Sorry that I would feel violated if that was my home and my family.

I'm talking more about how someone can call it an illegal search without having full knowledge of the legalities of the whole case.

 

[nlroma1o]

I'm talking more about how someone can call it an illegal search without having full knowledge of the legalities of the whole case.

I understand your point Grahambo, but its a youtube video. Obvisouly we are all making specualatory comments. No, we can't be sure they didnt have a warrant, but based on the preface of the video, and the claims from the poster, it does have the unpleasant signs of an unlawful search.

 

[Grahambo]

I understand your point Grahambo, but its a youtube video. Obvisouly we are all making specualatory comments. No, we can't be sure they didnt have a warrant, but based on the preface of the video, and the claims from the poster, it does have the unpleasant signs of an unlawful search.

I can understand it. Still don't agree with making those types of comments without having all the facts but to each his own I guess.

 

[greyhammer90]

Some will disagree but I think this qualifies as 'exigent circumstance'.

What makes trying to catch a terrorist a 'bad illegal search'? What about the authorization given to the searches do you know that most don't that allow you to classify it as a 'bad illegal search'?

Were you there and present to any legal documents that were given or any authorization given by those who are authorized to give out warrants, etc?

All I see from critics are 'backseat' questioning without having all the facts sitting right in front of you.

Yeah..poo poo on law enforcement for trying to catch a terrorist who has clearly demonstrated his desire to hurt and kill anybody and everybody.

EDIT: I'm not trying to be confrontational. Many of you know that I'm not that type but while I see a lot of criticism, what I don't see are people in this forum using facts to back up their criticism. It's all guess work and I personally don't find that intelligent. Instead, it makes most look like blubbering children. I love opinions from all sorts of views but when its careless, I find it difficult to appreciate the back and forth candor that we should be accustomed to.

I don't know for a fact that it's not a warranted search. But given how it looks, as well as the circumstances at the time, I'd like to know how they got a warrant. It's not much better if the way they got a warrant was "this guy says we can't search his place.... probable cause for a warrant.". If they didn't have a warrant then I think it's totally fair to call into question the legality of the situation. I don't think "there's a terrorist in the city somewhere" is enough to claim an exigent circumstances. But again, I don't know all the facts of this particular raid, and am not claiming to. But when I see innocent citizens getting taken out of their homes by gunpoint I get a little suspicious, and I wanted to show it to others.

Sorry if I got hostile with your whole "milk" thing. But it was, in my mind, an off topic "Look! Police are your friends!" post that I felt was meant to insinuate that I was arguing something that I actually wasn't. (That cops are bad)

 

[Grahambo]

I don't know for a fact that it's not a warranted search. But given how it looks, as well as the circumstances at the time, I'd like to know how they got a warrant. It's not much better if the way they got a warrant was "this guy says we can't search his place.... probable cause for a warrant.". If they didn't have a warrant then I think it's totally fair to call into question the legality of the situation. I don't think "there's a terrorist in the city somewhere" is enough to claim an exigent circumstances. But again, I don't know all the facts of this particular raid, and am not claiming to. But when I see innocent citizens getting taken out of their homes by gunpoint I get a little suspicious, and I wanted to show it to others.

Sorry if I got hostile with your whole "milk" thing. But it was, in my mind, an off topic "Look! Police are your friends!" post that I felt was meant to insinuate that I was arguing something that I actually wasn't. (That cops are bad)

Nah. I thought it was cool photo that was being circulated throughout the internet. Didn't really know where else to put it really.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

I don't like to make speculatory comments about the intentions of a cop carrying two gallons of milk without all the facts. Could it have been that he was just really thirsty?

 

[FLDomer]

I don't like to make speculatory comments about the intentions of a cop carry two gallons of milk without all the facts. Could it have been that he was just really thirsty?

and concerned about his bones...

 

[Grahambo]

I don't like to make speculatory comments about the intentions of a cop carrying two gallons of milk without all the facts. Could it have been that he was just really thirsty?

 

[Emcee77]

I don't know for a fact that it's not a warranted search. But given how it looks, as well as the circumstances at the time, I'd like to know how they got a warrant. It's not much better if the way they got a warrant was "this guy says we can't search his place.... probable cause for a warrant.". If they didn't have a warrant then I think it's totally fair to call into question the legality of the situation. I don't think "there's a terrorist in the city somewhere" is enough to claim an exigent circumstances. But again, I don't know all the facts of this particular raid, and am not claiming to. But when I see innocent citizens getting taken out of their homes by gunpoint I get a little suspicious, and I wanted to show it to others.

Sorry if I got hostile with your whole "milk" thing. But it was, in my mind, an off topic "Look! Police are your friends!" post that I felt was meant to insinuate that I was arguing something that I actually wasn't. (That cops are bad)

But don't we make exceptions for terrorism all the time when it comes to determining the extent of constitutional rights? For instance, based on the "public safety exception," law enforcement authorities were allowed to question Tsarnaev without the Miranda warnings normally required by the 5th and 6th Amendments (not that the public safety exception is limited to terrorism, but it's often used in that context). We designate terrorists as "enemy combatants" in a "war" so we can deny them constitutional rights to counsel or to a speedy trial that other criminals enjoy. After 10 years of this debate, I guess I'm surprised to see this come up as if limiting the protections of the Constitution in the context of the fight against terrorism is something new.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Everybody talks about this whole case like it is the directy the work of a foreign based government or terrorist group. Is there any kind of evidence that this is the case? Is there evidence that these two brothers had contact with anyone else? At all?

 

[Emcee77]

Everybody talks about this whole case like it is the directy the work of a foreign based government or terrorist group. Is there any kind of evidence that this is the case? Is there evidence that these two brothers had contact with anyone else? At all?

No, none so far, although they are still investigating the older brother's trip to Russia.

Is this directed at the immediate conversation in this thread, or older posts? If the former, I'll just point out that for some of the relaxations of constitutional prohibitions we've been talking about, it doesn't have to be a matter of international terrorism. For example, I mentioned the "public safety exception" to the Miranda requirement, which arose in New York v. Quarles, a normal gun crime case unrelated to terrorism.

 

[greyhammer90]

But don't we make exceptions for terrorism all the time when it comes to determining the extent of constitutional rights? For instance, based on the "public safety exception," law enforcement authorities were allowed to question Tsarnaev without the Miranda warnings normally required by the 5th and 6th Amendments (not that the public safety exception is limited to terrorism, but it's often used in that context). We designate terrorists as "enemy combatants" in a "war" so we can deny them constitutional rights to counsel or to a speedy trial that other criminals enjoy. After 10 years of this debate, I guess I'm surprised to see this come up as if limiting the protections of the Constitution in the context of the fight against terrorism is something new.

I'm not sure if your post is meant to be simply a statement or a challenge to the validity of my outrage. I would lean towards the former but just in case... just because we've been doing that for a few years doesn't make it right. I'm not a fan of any of the above policies, and I think that viewing things like this might help breed healthy skepticism amongst the US citizens that need "protection".

 

[Emcee77]

I'm not sure if your post is meant to be simply a statement or a challenge to the validity of my outrage. I would lean towards the former but just in case... just because we've been doing that for a few years doesn't make it right. I'm not a fan of any of the above policies, and I think that viewing things like this might help breed healthy skepticism amongst the US citizens that need "protection".

Definitely didn't mean to challenge the validity of the outrage ... I was just being cynical. (If the post was meant to do anything ... it was to provoke exactly the reaction you had to it, lol). I think the bolded is right on.

 

[peoriairish]

I don't like to make speculatory comments about the intentions of a cop carrying two gallons of milk without all the facts. Could it have been that he was just really thirsty?

And yeah, I'm still cool with the cops searching people's houses like that in the interest of national security. I understand that it can be a slippery slope, but when there are obvious exigent circumstances. I mean only <12 hours prior, these suspects had been openly shooting at and throwing homemade bombs at the LEOs. I'm cool with it. If that were my house, I'd shake their hand afterwards thanking them for being thorough, but that's just me.

 

[Bogtrotter07]

And yeah, I'm still cool with the cops searching people's houses like that in the interest of national security. I understand that it can be a slippery slope, but when there are obvious exigent circumstances. I mean only <12 hours prior, these suspects had been openly shooting at and throwing homemade bombs at the LEOs. I'm cool with it. If that were my house, I'd shake their hand afterwards thanking them for being thorough, but that's just me.

I am not trying to work into this. What I am approaching is the fact that I read an article today saying this was the first major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I just don't want Elmer Fudd and Deputy Dawg trampling all over our rights looking for these foreign terrorists connections, when we may have a much simpler and more dangerous situation, that any effin crackpot with half backed ideology and a chip on his shoulder can find the information and technology to build a lethal "birdie to fly at anyone in the world he or she wants." The threshold to being a mass murderer must feel much lower when you don't have to look them in the eye. You may actually attract intelligent people who don't want to die.

 

[DSully1995]

It was a member of the Muslim community, an imam worried about radicalization, who led police to one of the suspects.
That gives other Muslims hope that Canadians will recognize the plot as a perversion of their faith, and nothing to do with Muslims as a whole.
“(We) will continue to denounce this and any other alleged plots by individuals who will take our faith and distort it or pervert it for their own political goals or personal agendas,” Ihsaan Gardee, executive director for the Canadian Council on American-Islamic Relations, told CTV’s Power Play on Tuesday.


Read more: Worshippers at terrorist suspect's mosque shocked | CTV News

From an CTV article on the foiled plot

 

[phgreek]

I am not trying to work into this. What I am approaching is the fact that I read an article today saying this was the first major terrorist attack on US soil since 9/11. I just don't want Elmer Fudd and Deputy Dawg trampling all over our rights looking for these foreign terrorists connections, when we may have a much simpler and more dangerous situation, that any effin crackpot with half backed ideology and a chip on his shoulder can find the information and technology to build a lethal "birdie to fly at anyone in the world he or she wants." The threshold to being a mass murderer must feel much lower when you don't have to look them in the eye. You may actually attract intelligent people who don't want to die.

...nice indirect generalization. I can't believe I have to say this...Look not all cartoons with a southern draw or toting a shotgun are Tim McVeigh. Chris Mathews would eat your lunch.

 

[blueNDgold44]

Supposedly the younger Tsarnaev wrote a note on the side of the boat which he was captured in.

"Basically, the note says ... the bombings were retribution for the U.S. crimes against Muslims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and that the victims of the Boston bombing were 'collateral damage,' the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world," said CBS News reporter John Miller, who is a former spokesman for the FBI. The note summed up with the idea that "when you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims," CBS News reported.

Boston bombing suspect wrote message in boat: CBS News report

 

[Bogtrotter07]

Supposedly the younger Tsarnaev wrote a note on the side of the boat which he was captured in.

"Basically, the note says ... the bombings were retribution for the U.S. crimes against Muslims in places like Iraq and Afghanistan and that the victims of the Boston bombing were 'collateral damage,' the same way innocent victims have been collateral damage in U.S. wars around the world," said CBS News reporter John Miller, who is a former spokesman for the FBI. The note summed up with the idea that "when you attack one Muslim, you attack all Muslims," CBS News reported.

Boston bombing suspect wrote message in boat: CBS News report

Yeah, sociopathic ramblings to justify acting like a monster. Still no ties to anyone. Ma Barker and her sons wannabes. Except the Chechs' couldn't hold a candle to the Barkers!

 

[blueNDgold44]

Tsarnaev pleads not guilty to 30 counts, including using a weapon of mass destruction to kill.

 

[arrowryan]

not guilty!?

 

[blueNDgold44]

That's what I said.

 

[greyhammer90]

not guilty!?

what'd you expect?

"Since the defendant has bravely admitted to killing with a weapon of mass destruction I have no choice but to give time served."

 

[NDWorld247]

Aren't guilty pleas only common in plea deals? No way in hell the federal gov't is offering this guy a plea deal.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Aren't guilty pleas only common in plea deals? No way in hell the federal gov't is offering this guy a plea deal.

Agree. They have everything they need to get whatever conviction they want. Personally I say drop him off in downtown Boston and give him a ten minute head start. Whatever happens after that happens. Save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

 

[NDWorld247]

Agree. They have everything they need to get whatever conviction they want. Personally I say drop him off in downtown Boston and give him a ten minute head start. Whatever happens after that happens. Save the taxpayers a bunch of money.

I have an idea of what would happen: Soccer referee gets quartered, beheaded . No head start though. He's a slippery m***** f*****.

 

[blueNDgold44]

Does MA have the death penalty?

 

[HereComeTheIrish]

Good that this is a federal case. There is no death penalty in Mass.

 

[NDWorld247]

The death penalty is not a given. I like Tommy's idea the best. Tsarnaev is being held 5 minutes from my house and on land bordering my uncle's property. I also know a few guards at the prison. I'm going to call in some favors and get this taken care of...

Tsarnaev May Face Death Penalty | WPRI.com

WASHINGTON (AP) — If the Obama administration tries for the death penalty against Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, it could face a long, difficult legal battle in a state that hasn't seen an execution in nearly 70 years.

Attorney General Eric Holder will have to decide several months before the start of a trial — if there is one — whether to seek death for Tsarnaev. It is the highest-profile such decision yet to come before Holder, who personally opposes the death penalty.


In the past 4 ½ years, the Justice Department has sought executions in several instances. But, in an indication of how protracted the process can be, none of the administration's cases has yet put anyone on death row.

Massachusetts abolished its own death penalty in 1984, but Tsarnaev is being prosecuted in federal court. Since the federal death penalty was reinstated in 1988, only three people, including McVeigh, have been executed. Others have pending appeals.

In cases where federal juries have chosen between life and death, they have imposed twice as many life sentences as death sentences — 144 to 73 — according to the Federal Death Penalty Resource Counsel Project, a two-decade-old group created by the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.

 

[BobD]

I'm thinking he is going to attempt the "brainwashed minion" defense like that kid who was involved in the DC sniper shootings, In that case I think the older guy got death and the kid got life?