Ron Paul: Police Manhunt For Boston Marathon Bombing Suspects, Scarier Than Attack

[G.T.]

"people were lining the streets cheering the state!"

"people were forced to stay in their homes"


snarf

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

"people were lining the streets cheering the state!"

"people were forced to stay in their homes"


snarf

Yes, because they're clearly saying those two events happened at the same time, right?

 

[G.T.]

"people were lining the streets cheering the state!"

"people were forced to stay in their homes"


snarf

Yes, because they're clearly saying those two events happened at the same time, right?

Well - yes, they are.

 

[OKTexas]

Case


Law

There is no case law that supported the warrantless searches conducted in Boston because the police had no information that would give them a reasonable belief that the suspect was in any particular structure until the man spotted him in the boat and called them. That fact took exigent circumstances out of the picture for all the other searches.

No reasonable belief?


An area was quarantined off and he was hiding SOMEWHERE within it.

Not finding him posed an imminent threat.

I think you need to do a bit of research and actually read the case law you spouted about. Then you may have the ability to speak on this subject and not look like a total boob.

 

[G.T.]

The total boobs are those who said there was a forced lockdown.

 

[Spoonman]

it was, talk about an excessive use of force, unwarranted search, overuse of fire power.

 

[G.T.]

There is no case law that supported the warrantless searches conducted in Boston because the police had no information that would give them a reasonable belief that the suspect was in any particular structure until the man spotted him in the boat and called them. That fact took exigent circumstances out of the picture for all the other searches.

No reasonable belief?


An area was quarantined off and he was hiding SOMEWHERE within it.

Not finding him posed an imminent threat.

I think you need to do a bit of research and actually read the case law you spouted about. Then you may have the ability to speak on this subject and not look like a total boob.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.




And of course, if the suspect was somewhere within the radius then there's no reasonable suspicion that he's in your house.....n'aw, none at all not with 5 thousand people on a manhunt for close to 24 hours and not finding him yet.

 

[KevinWestern]

That video has nothing to do with the request to stay in homes - dolt.

That video was a search, I did not say the searches were voluntary. Get your head out of your ass and join the actual conversation.


The staying-in-your-homes request was VOLUNTARY, according to the mayor and governor, NOT my sister. My sister is a corroboration of what I witnessed with my own eyes.

GT - It most certainly does. I realize the law officials aren't going to say "if you leave your home we will shoot you", and that they're going to use the words "voluntary", ect.

But when a neighbor is videotaping his fellow neighbor being forced out at gunpoint by about 8 guys with war-grade weaponry, do you think he has much of a choice of whether or not he should stay indoors?



.

 

[G.T.]

That video has nothing to do with the request to stay in homes - dolt.

That video was a search, I did not say the searches were voluntary. Get your head out of your ass and join the actual conversation.


The staying-in-your-homes request was VOLUNTARY, according to the mayor and governor, NOT my sister. My sister is a corroboration of what I witnessed with my own eyes.

GT - It most certainly does. I realize the city isn't going to say "if you leave your home we will shoot you", and that they're going to use the words "voluntary", ect.

But when a neighbor is videotaping his fellow neighbor being forced out at gunpoint by about 8 guys with war-grade weaponry, do you think he has much of a choice of whether or not he should stay indoors?



.

When you have one video in where you yourself are ignorant of the circumstances inside of said home, and on top of that there was reasonable cause to assume the suspect was in ONE of these homes......

and the fact that the police didn't REMAIN, the police didn't steal stuff, the police didn't beat anyone up, and the police didn't arrest any of the hundreds of people who DISOBEYED THE REQUEST TO STAY HOME, then what you have here is "much ado over nothing."

It takes a grown up looking past being a cynic all of the time to realize that crying wolf a million times is childish - especially when the net effect is "suspect in hands, life back to normal, WOW."

 

[paulitician]

That video has nothing to do with the request to stay in homes - dolt.

That video was a search, I did not say the searches were voluntary. Get your head out of your ass and join the actual conversation.


The staying-in-your-homes request was VOLUNTARY, according to the mayor and governor, NOT my sister. My sister is a corroboration of what I witnessed with my own eyes.

GT - It most certainly does. I realize the law officials aren't going to say "if you leave your home we will shoot you", and that they're going to use the words "voluntary", ect.

But when a neighbor is videotaping his fellow neighbor being forced out at gunpoint by about 8 guys with war-grade weaponry, do you think he has much of a choice of whether or not he should stay indoors?



.

Well now, hold on. You do have a choice. You either come out, or you'll be deemed a Terrorist and shipped off to GITMO. The choice is all yours buddy.

 

[KevinWestern]

No reasonable belief?


An area was quarantined off and he was hiding SOMEWHERE within it.

Not finding him posed an imminent threat.

I think you need to do a bit of research and actually read the case law you spouted about. Then you may have the ability to speak on this subject and not look like a total boob.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.




And of course, if the suspect was somewhere within the radius then there's no reasonable suspicion that he's in your house.....n'aw, none at all not with 5 thousand people on a manhunt for close to 24 hours and not finding him yet.

Do you believe the police have sufficient evidence to conclude that all of the folks who were removed from their home at gunpoint - a rather traumatizing situation - were "armed and dangerous" and linked to the crime in a way that warranted those actions?

.

 

[G.T.]

It's such poor, low ball stuff to mock a city for cheering the authorities for capturing a guy who just blew 200 peoples limbs off.

Seriously, if you're that deeply involved in this whole "we're so overly oppressed" business as much as you portray online, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING DAILY ONLINE?

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about bending over and taking it. The guys who really believe this cynical oppressive the "state is going to become a military dictatorship" bullshit are the real pussies we should all be after.

Why?

Because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE we're being oppressed. And they don't do shit but grovel. No standards for standing for what they believe.

 

[KevinWestern]

That video has nothing to do with the request to stay in homes - dolt.

That video was a search, I did not say the searches were voluntary. Get your head out of your ass and join the actual conversation.


The staying-in-your-homes request was VOLUNTARY, according to the mayor and governor, NOT my sister. My sister is a corroboration of what I witnessed with my own eyes.

GT - It most certainly does. I realize the city isn't going to say "if you leave your home we will shoot you", and that they're going to use the words "voluntary", ect.

But when a neighbor is videotaping his fellow neighbor being forced out at gunpoint by about 8 guys with war-grade weaponry, do you think he has much of a choice of whether or not he should stay indoors?



.

When you have one video in where you yourself are ignorant of the circumstances inside of said home, and on top of that there was reasonable cause to assume the suspect was in ONE of these homes......

and the fact that the police didn't REMAIN, the police didn't steal stuff, the police didn't beat anyone up, and the police didn't arrest any of the hundreds of people who DISOBEYED THE REQUEST TO STAY HOME, then what you have here is "much ado over nothing."

It takes a grown up looking past being a cynic all of the time to realize that crying wolf a million times is childish - especially when the net effect is "suspect in hands, life back to normal, WOW."

Was that the "net effect"?

I thought the militarized police force were only able to locate the suspect after a concerned citizen phoned in his location after seeing blood by his boat?

Can you please walk through how these searches led to the arrest of the 19-year old?

.

 

[G.T.]

I think you need to do a bit of research and actually read the case law you spouted about. Then you may have the ability to speak on this subject and not look like a total boob.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.




And of course, if the suspect was somewhere within the radius then there's no reasonable suspicion that he's in your house.....n'aw, none at all not with 5 thousand people on a manhunt for close to 24 hours and not finding him yet.

Do you believe the police have sufficient evidence to conclude that all of the folks who were removed from their home at gunpoint - a rather traumatizing situation - were "armed and dangerous" and linked to the crime in a way that warranted those actions?

.

I don't know what occurred or what was said in that home.

They may have been tough guys like you all and tried telling the officers that they had no right to do the search, where reasonable suspicion obviously existed because the area was cordoned off and the suspect was definitely around...............so the gun point was perhaps a result of their own obstruction.

Where are all the videos of other homes where this occurred? You'd think there would be at least 50.

 

[OKTexas]

No reasonable belief?


An area was quarantined off and he was hiding SOMEWHERE within it.

Not finding him posed an imminent threat.

I think you need to do a bit of research and actually read the case law you spouted about. Then you may have the ability to speak on this subject and not look like a total boob.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a crime. If the officer additionally has reasonable suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.




And of course, if the suspect was somewhere within the radius then there's no reasonable suspicion that he's in your house.....n'aw, none at all not with 5 thousand people on a manhunt for close to 24 hours and not finding him yet.

Try again, the search of a person on a public street is different than forcing your way into a home where you have absolutely no information that a subject is inside. But hey, carry on and I'll keep laughing. But in the interest of fair play, you might want to do a search of "exigent circumstances" that's the failed argument most use to try to justify the searches.

 

[Desperado]

Seem the one politician that actually gets it.
Is now retired from Congress.
That is a loss for all of us.

 

[G.T.]

GT - It most certainly does. I realize the city isn't going to say "if you leave your home we will shoot you", and that they're going to use the words "voluntary", ect.

But when a neighbor is videotaping his fellow neighbor being forced out at gunpoint by about 8 guys with war-grade weaponry, do you think he has much of a choice of whether or not he should stay indoors?



.

When you have one video in where you yourself are ignorant of the circumstances inside of said home, and on top of that there was reasonable cause to assume the suspect was in ONE of these homes......

and the fact that the police didn't REMAIN, the police didn't steal stuff, the police didn't beat anyone up, and the police didn't arrest any of the hundreds of people who DISOBEYED THE REQUEST TO STAY HOME, then what you have here is "much ado over nothing."

It takes a grown up looking past being a cynic all of the time to realize that crying wolf a million times is childish - especially when the net effect is "suspect in hands, life back to normal, WOW."

Was that the "net effect"?

I thought the militarized police force were only able to locate the suspect after a concerned citizen phoned in his location after seeing blood by his boat?

Can you please walk through how these searches led to the arrest of the 19-year old?

.

The boat was within the search area.

The area was closed off (he wasn't going anywhere).

He would have eventually been found regardless if the tip made it faster, or not.

The search was necessary because the suspects had guns and bombs and could have been holding men, women or children hostage within their own homes.

 

[KevinWestern]

It's such poor, low ball stuff to mock a city for cheering the authorities for capturing a guy who just blew 200 peoples limbs off.

Seriously, if you're that deeply involved in this whole "we're so overly oppressed" business as much as you portray online, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING DAILY ONLINE?

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about bending over and taking it. The guys who really believe this cynical oppressive the "state is going to become a military dictatorship" bullshit are the real pussies we should all be after.

Why?

Because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE we're being oppressed. And they don't do shit but grovel. No standards for standing for what they believe.

Listen, we can all get along here.

People are just a tad bit concerned about the forcing of folks out of their home, the lockdown, the overt police aggressiveness (as seen through videos, ect) over one guy who may or may not be the bomber (and may or may not be armed).

You're saying that none of those concerns are valid? How many rights - as a group - are we willing to give up over 1 person's criminal actions?


.

 

[paulitician]

Seem the one politician that actually gets it.
Is now retired from Congress.
That is a loss for all of us.

Yeah, but he's still making a difference. He inspires people to talk about these things. If he wasn't around, i doubt too many people would even bother to discuss this issue.

 

[G.T.]

It's such poor, low ball stuff to mock a city for cheering the authorities for capturing a guy who just blew 200 peoples limbs off.

Seriously, if you're that deeply involved in this whole "we're so overly oppressed" business as much as you portray online, then WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU DOING DAILY ONLINE?

Let's talk about principles. Let's talk about bending over and taking it. The guys who really believe this cynical oppressive the "state is going to become a military dictatorship" bullshit are the real pussies we should all be after.

Why?

Because they ACTUALLY BELIEVE we're being oppressed. And they don't do shit but grovel. No standards for standing for what they believe.

Listen, we can all get along here.

People are just a tad bit concerned about the forcing of folks out of their home, the lockdown, the overt police aggressiveness (as seen through videos, ect) over one guy who may or may not be the bomber (and may or may not be armed).

You're saying that none of those concerns are valid? How many rights - as a group - are we willing to give up over 1 person's criminal actions?


.

no rights were given up.

imo, the searches were within the law.

also, the lockdown was voluntary, and I know that fact beyond the shadow of a doubt. There are also hundreds of videos of people outside all over during the supposed forced lockdown, even interacting with police. So to continue to lie and state that there was a forced lockdown is not an advancement of the conversation, it's adrift into wasting of time.




Most of the time when people say their "rights are being given up," they're just being prisses.

When the laws were written, they were written so that officers could not occupy or destroy homes and bully the citizens with no cause or justification.

When the law is hunting a guy who let off bombs in your city and then youre acting like a house to house search is somehow in violation of the spirit of liberty or making such stretches as that, you're being a priss. the law wasn't intended for prisses to snub their noses at authority, it was made so that authorities couldn't unreasonably oppress people.

REAL OPPRESSION, not temporary inconvenience because FREAKIN BOMBER is within a mile of your house.

time to grow up about shit like this.