Witness says Boston bomb suspect run over and executed by police!

Originally posted by CyningSaeward
reply to post by VeritaAnon

 

Exactly what I was going to say, almost all the news reported a silver Mercedes. I'm fairly sure a police SUV would have been the first thing reported.

A bit like the fact that they originally were at the 7/11 to rob it, then that was changed to them simply being spotted there.

Wait...they didn't rob the convenience store?
holy crap, the water has been muddied so much by the media that no one knows what the hell is going on!

Originally posted by Thunderheart

Originally posted by CyningSaeward
reply to post by VeritaAnon

 

Exactly what I was going to say, almost all the news reported a silver Mercedes. I'm fairly sure a police SUV would have been the first thing reported.

A bit like the fact that they originally were at the 7/11 to rob it, then that was changed to them simply being spotted there.

Wait...they didn't rob the convenience store?
holy crap, the water has been muddied so much by the media that no one knows what the hell is going on!

Exactly, I'm starting to think that because of the amount of internet reporting keeping tabs on this, the authorities and news outlets have deliberately made the story impossible to delve into.

Does beg the question though, if they were about to rob a store, why would the police responding automatically know or even suspect they were also the bombers?

Originally posted by Thunderheart

Originally posted by CyningSaeward
reply to post by VeritaAnon

 

Exactly what I was going to say, almost all the news reported a silver Mercedes. I'm fairly sure a police SUV would have been the first thing reported.

A bit like the fact that they originally were at the 7/11 to rob it, then that was changed to them simply being spotted there.

Wait...they didn't rob the convenience store?
holy crap, the water has been muddied so much by the media that no one knows what the hell is going on!

Exactly right. I would take all information with a grain of salt, since so much information was false. Eventually we will get the real story. Just today the feds said they will try him in the civilian justice system. He will not be termed an enemy combatant. This leaves the trial open to a jury if the charged so wants it, which all the information will be presented to them, and us.

reply to post by AmberLeaf


Neither of these guys can back-up their version of events since neither can speak. The survivor won't get a fair trial and the outcome will be used to serve as a deterrent to other would be terrorists. I think these two guys did plan the Boston bombings, but rather than shutting them down they were indirectly encouraged by......someone.

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by Thunderheart

Originally posted by CyningSaeward
reply to post by VeritaAnon

 

Exactly what I was going to say, almost all the news reported a silver Mercedes. I'm fairly sure a police SUV would have been the first thing reported.

A bit like the fact that they originally were at the 7/11 to rob it, then that was changed to them simply being spotted there.

Wait...they didn't rob the convenience store?
holy crap, the water has been muddied so much by the media that no one knows what the hell is going on!

Exactly right. I would take all information with a grain of salt, since so much information was false. Eventually we will get the real story. Just today the feds said they will try him in the civilian justice system. He will not be termed an enemy combatant. This leaves the trial open to a jury if the charged so wants it, which all the information will be presented to them, and us.

Except he now can't speak and is probably drugged up to his eyeballs with who knows what, I even recall them saying that he may now have brain damage.

Originally posted by EA006
reply to post by AmberLeaf

 

Neither of these guys can back-up their version of events since neither can speak. The survivor won't get a fair trial and the outcome will be used to serve as a deterrent to other would be terrorists. I think these two guys did plan the Boston bombings, but rather than shutting them down they were indirectly encouraged by......someone.

What makes you think he will not get a fair trial?

Originally posted by CyningSaeward

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by Thunderheart

Originally posted by CyningSaeward
reply to post by VeritaAnon

 

Exactly what I was going to say, almost all the news reported a silver Mercedes. I'm fairly sure a police SUV would have been the first thing reported.

A bit like the fact that they originally were at the 7/11 to rob it, then that was changed to them simply being spotted there.

Wait...they didn't rob the convenience store?
holy crap, the water has been muddied so much by the media that no one knows what the hell is going on!

Exactly right. I would take all information with a grain of salt, since so much information was false. Eventually we will get the real story. Just today the feds said they will try him in the civilian justice system. He will not be termed an enemy combatant. This leaves the trial open to a jury if the charged so wants it, which all the information will be presented to them, and us.

Except he now can't speak and is probably drugged up to his eyeballs with who knows what, I even recall them saying that he may now have brain damage.

He may not be able to vocalize, who knows about that, but he can still write down what happened. Not sure about anything related to his medical condition at this point.

reply to post by Covertblack


Public safety trumps the fourth amendment? That is news to me, I didn't realize they put an asterisk beside:

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.

So hypothetically based on what you say about "trumping" the fourth amendment, when there is a shooting murder in Los Angeles for example and they know the suspected shooter must be in the immediate vicinity since the shooting just took place within minutes(lets say), police have the right to go door to door intimidating law abiding citizens to open their doors for their homes to be searched, because, it is for public safety?

No, nothing "trumps" the fourth amendment. Law enforcement have sworn to uphold the constitution, there are no exceptions.

reply to post by Thunderheart


No, they didn't rob the convenience store. They just happened to be there at the exact same time it was being robbed by someone else. While investigating the robbery the police realized that Suspect #2 had been there also.

I think this is also where the hijack victim escaped/was released???? I could be way off on that.

Originally posted by unknown known
reply to post by Covertblack

 

Public safety trumps the fourth amendment? That is news to me, I didn't realize they put an asterisk beside:

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.

So hypothetically based on what you say about "trumping" the fourth amendment, when there is a shooting murder in Los Angeles for example and they know the suspected shooter must be in the immediate vicinity since the shooting just took place within minutes(lets say), police have the right to go door to door intimidating law abiding citizens to open their doors for their homes to be searched, because, it is for public safety?

No, nothing "trumps" the fourth amendment. Law enforcement have sworn to uphold the constitution, there are no exceptions.

Yes, it's part of case law.

n exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

www.slate.com...

Good article there.

reply to post by unknown known


There is a public safety clause TO the fourth amendment:

Public safety: The police do not need a warrant to search if they reasonably fear for their safety or the public’s safety. For example, if the police drive by your house and see you in the garage making bombs out of explosives, they can conduct a search.

www.criminaldefenseduilawyer.com...

In fact, a lawyer will advise you:

Now, as a practical matter, you should NEVER give the police consent to search your person, home, car, garage, etc. If you ever find yourself such a situation, clearly, calming and politely tell them that you will not consent.

As for the "silver" Mercedes SUV, it was a black SUV, which at night, could EASILY be mistaken as one of myriad black SUVs used by law enforcement during the manhunt.

Originally posted by VeritaAnon
reply to post by Thunderheart

 

No, they didn't rob the convenience store. They just happened to be there at the exact same time it was being robbed by someone else. While investigating the robbery the police realized that Suspect #2 had been there also.

I think this is also where the hijack victim escaped/was released???? I could be way off on that.

this is ridiculous, we'll never get the entire truth.

reply to post by Covertblack


So who is responsible when these unwarranted searches prove to useless? When they intrude on hundreds of law abiding citizens personal property and nothing comes from it?

Also, the "hot pursuit" clause is when they are on the trail of someone. They clearly didn't have any intelligence on the boy after he...ran away...that is why he was in a boat and they never had the slightest inclination.

reply to post by Thunderheart


Yeah, why wasn't the car jacked victim executed? They had allegedly just shot two people. They had conducted a bomb attack four days prior...but were supposed to believe they just let someone go, wow, these guys aren't so bad after all.....

reply to post by unknown known

Yeah, why wasn't the car jacked victim executed?

The man stated he was told it was because he was a foreigner, not an American. If he was American, he believes he would have been killed.

reply to post by unknown known



I seriously doubt that they'd have difficulty proving these searches fit the exclusion. Still, had the home owner refused, they'd have much more solid grounds for a case of violated rights, if something was found, than if they allowed the search. Once you allow the search, you give up the right.

Originally posted by unknown known
reply to post by Thunderheart

 

Yeah, why wasn't the car jacked victim executed? They had allegedly just shot two people. They had conducted a bomb attack four days prior...but were supposed to believe they just let someone go, wow, these guys aren't so bad after all.....

To me, reading between the lines, it sounds like two guys trying to get out of dodge after they figured out they were going to be framed and murdered for the bombings.
The whole thing stinks to high heaven.

reply to post by Gazrok


Seems interesting that they now have a conscious when they had just recently set off an explosion killing three people and wounding hundreds more. They obviously knew they were going to injure/kill some "foreigners". I think their mind frame is to cause chaos and death to America in general. I don't think they had it set to kill only white americans.

The car jack victims testimony is suspect.

Originally posted by unknown known
reply to post by Covertblack

 

So who is responsible when these unwarranted searches prove to useless? When they intrude on hundreds of law abiding citizens personal property and nothing comes from it?

Also, the "hot pursuit" clause is when they are on the trail of someone. They clearly didn't have any intelligence on the boy after he...ran away...that is why he was in a boat and they never had the slightest inclination.

In this situation, as the article states, the police could make the case that without apprehension the suspect could cause further harm. What do you mean who is responsible?

the kids have the truth, keep that boy alive.


this was a fbi false flag, i'm shocked that boy is still alive...


thank you God

Originally posted by MaxSteiner
reply to post by samkent

 

But police chases do...
Seriously there would be a video

I'd like know what the Helicopter was doing, if there's a curfew and the choppers have a IR camera they should have been able to track him all night - and there would be a ton of footage.
If there was no helicopter they can't have been trying all that hard...

Do you think the FBI is going to hand over the police vid on a dime to a bunch of media vultures? This stuff will be used in the case against him.