RON PAUL: Police manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspect scarier than attack

reply to post by LogicGrind

By the way, the man who found him...even though his boat was shot to hell, doesn't seem very angry about the police presence at all.

So, if one person says it is okay, we should agree that police should shoot at unarmed supects for no good reason?

Where's the logic there? Oh, that's right, you grind it.

The cops contained Dzokhar in the area, that was the whole point. It doesn't matter that a citizen found him, the police presence kept him in the area and made citizens hyper-sensative to anything out of the ordinary.

How did they contain him? You can't really be sure that he was aware of the lockdown, can you?
A roadblock, stopping his vehicle would have worked more quickly.
But they waited until he was already hidden before they locked everything down. Good thinking and action on their part, eh?

reply to post by LogicGrind

So explain to me how a LEO can take your gun away during interaction with you even if you have a permit to carry it? They will take it from you to secure it while they are interacting with you...it's done all the time. Is this not infringing on your right to bear arms? They are literally taking your gun away...and it is 100% legal.

Technically, they can't do it. You can let them do it.

Watch a video:

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

Of course they would agree. You agree, I agree, everyone with at least a pea for a brain agrees. That was military occupation of the city of boston. The end did not justify the means, not by a mile.

And if those two had made it to Times Square with the remaining bomb what would you be saying?

Or better still if those two burst into your school auditorium and blown up your kid?

In certain circumstances the ends do justify the means.

They did it right and you are wrong.

reply to post by LogicGrind


Yea well... maybe because it was boston. Now, what about if it was somewhere in tx? or arizona? alabama? You think those guys down there would behave like boston's liberal "do what you want officer, sure go on ahead and shoot my boat cause I know its for my own good" indoctrination crap... but those folks down the south have trouble bending their knees. At least my hope's with the south. You have a quote there in a confederate flag somewhere that says "the south shall rise again" - well probably to defend that country.

But thats ok I guess... keep on having your liberties taken. I'm from europe, I have none left because of people like you and now its too late - oh and btw I didnt ask for this, I inherited my loss of liberty from past generations who said "its for our own good" and that taught us behaviors that were suppose to make us look "civil" when actually were making us weak, and now look at us, europe used to have a brutal fighting spirit, take a look at history, theres not a single country in europe that doesnt have a proud history, yet the 20th century alone, actually in little more than 60, 70 years they did their best to take away all that and to make us the saddest and grayest, soulless, uninspired people on this planet. Yet you still have a chance and you're willing to let go of yours - thats what I dont get. Do you not see?

reply to post by butcherguy

You seem to be looking at the Constitution as a set of laws.

You do realize that it sets out RIGHTS, I hope?
That would be what the Bill of Rights is about!

It actually does apply to citizens. Read the Constitution, you will find direct references to 'CITIZENS'.
Here is one(the word person is referring to a citizen of these United States):

The Bill of Rights is a list of things that the Fedeal Government is prohibited from doing.

In the example you gave, it is prohibiting from holding citizens...it applies to the Federal Government. The slavery one prohibits an action within the United States. The right to vote specifically says "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State".

This is basic Constitution knowledge, the Constitution is not meant to grant citizens anything...it is meant to define and limit the Federal Government.

reply to post by butcherguy

So, if one person says it is okay, we should agree that police should shoot at unarmed supects for no good reason?

Where's the logic there? Oh, that's right, you grind it.

I don't believe I said that if one person says it's okay than it is okay. Others are using this guy as an example as to why what the police did was wrong...I'm simply pointing out that he doesn't seem to have a problem with it.

No need for personal insults, we are all just sharing our opinions.

How did they contain him? You can't really be sure that he was aware of the lockdown, can you?
A roadblock, stopping his vehicle would have worked more quickly.
But they waited until he was already hidden before they locked everything down. Good thinking and action on their part, eh?

No, I can't be sure he was aware of the lockdown...except that there were cops and police vehicles everywhere. And the fact is that they did contain him, doesn't matter if he was aware of it or not...he was contained in the area.

I don't know how you expected them to lock down the area before he was hidden. There was a gun fight, he drove off, they locked down the area.

The bottom line is that they caught him because they kept him in the last area they knew he was in by locking down the area. You can specualte all you want on other methods of capturing him, but you can't deny that the method they took did in fact work successfully.

reply to post by butcherguy


I watched the video...the police officer took his gun at the very beginning of the video.

So....he did exactly what I said they can do.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by butcherguy

 

You seem to be looking at the Constitution as a set of laws.

You do realize that it sets out RIGHTS, I hope?
That would be what the Bill of Rights is about!

It actually does apply to citizens. Read the Constitution, you will find direct references to 'CITIZENS'.
Here is one(the word person is referring to a citizen of these United States):

The Bill of Rights is a list of things that the Fedeal Government is prohibited from doing.

In the example you gave, it is prohibiting from holding citizens...it applies to the Federal Government. The slavery one prohibits an action within the United States. The right to vote specifically says "shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State".

This is basic Constitution knowledge, the Constitution is not meant to grant citizens anything...it is meant to define and limit the Federal Government.

I can't take this any more.

READ HERE

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

Yea well... maybe because it was boston. Now, what about if it was somewhere in tx? or arizona? alabama? You think those guys down there would behave like boston's liberal "do what you want officer, sure go on ahead and shoot my boat cause I know its for my own good" indoctrination crap... but those folks down the south have trouble bending their knees. At least my hope's with the south. You have a quote there in a confederate flag somewhere that says "the south shall rise again" - well probably to defend that country.

I think it would be exactly like what happened in Boston. I didn't see the south rise again in response to Waco...I didn't see them do anything in response to Katrina...I didn't see them do anything about the police evacuating an entire town the same week as the Boston bombings due to a factory explosion.

But thanks for trying to inject partisan politics into it...yeah...it only happened in Boston because they are "liberal".

I think you listen to too many internet cowboys...people in the south are no different...they would comply just like any other American.

But thats ok I guess... keep on having your liberties taken. I'm from europe, I have none left because of people like you and now its too late - oh and btw I didnt ask for this, I inherited my loss of liberty from past generations who said "its for our own good" and that taught us behaviors that were suppose to make us look "civil" when actually were making us weak, and now look at us, europe used to have a brutal fighting spirit, take a look at history, theres not a single country in europe that doesnt have a proud history, yet the 20th century alone, actually in little more than 60, 70 years they did their best to take away all that and to make us the saddest and grayest, soulless, uninspired people on this planet. Yet you still have a chance and you're willing to let go of yours - thats what I dont get. Do you not see?

Well, I much prefer todays Europe rather than the pasts Europe. I don't know...today just seems better than the Spanish Conquistodors, the English Empire colonizing everything, the Germans staring world wars, or all of Europe starting the Crusades.

Call me crazy...but I like the change I see in Europe.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
There was no right answer for the response.

If they wouldn't have responded overwhelmingly, people would be crying about how the police/government isn't doing their job. And when they did respond with overwhelming force, they still get criticized.

In the end, they got both the suspects in only 4 days...kind of hard to argue with those results.

Nonsense!!! Absolute utter nonsense! Is this what people tell themselves in order to look the other way when their rights are trampled?

There is a right answer for the response. It starts with following procedures and protocols that have been in place for a century! Police in this Country are not permitted to search every single person in an area simply because some other person committed a crime and might be in that area.

I do agree with one this you said, it IS hard to argue with the results. So let us look at those results again...

Fact is, when Police had the area locked down, they did not find him. When Police lifted the lock down, it was a citizen who finally stepped outside his home who found him and called Police. That is the result, not simply that he was caught, but HOW he was caught.

Nothing the Police actually did caught these guys. It was with help of the Public that they were caught so quickly. Locking down the area actually hindered the capture.

reply to post by LogicGrind

This is basic Constitution knowledge, the Constitution is not meant to grant citizens anything...

So, the US Constitution does not enumerate rights that citizens have here in the United States?

reply to post by lynxpilot


We have already been over that STATES, specifically State judges, are bound by the Constitution first.

The Boston PD are not the State nor are they State judges.

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

Sorry... why would they disagree with Ron's statement?

Of course they would agree. You agree, I agree, everyone with at least a pea for a brain agrees. That was military occupation of the city of boston. The end did not justify the means, not by a mile. Actually nothing would justify that action unless the united states were under invasion and in a state of war. And still that wouldnt justify the action of the military towards their own civilians.

Now why wouldnt the people of Boston agree with that? They were the ones that got treated like criminals with humvs and armored vehicles on their streets and army personnel in full body armor patrolling their streets with their rifles pointed at them, told by loudspeakers to shut their windows and to stay in doors, and to have the swat teams and the army barge in to do "whatever" inside their houses, to get them outside their houses with their hands up, by force, like theres a little bomber in each one of us, tactical teams camping outside as if something goes wrong they were authorized to take the shot.

Now why shouldnt the people of boston agree?

I have some friends in Boston. Actually I should say "had".

On my facebook, my Boston friends were patting themselves on the back, praising the actions of Police. I commented on one of those post about the Police response. My comment resulted in being cussed out by all of them and then every single "friend" I had in that area deleted me.

I have no doubt that under the right circumstances, people will welcome their own enslavement with open arms.

If people aren't concerned with the militarisation of the police, then they should be. These trends don't reverse, just become more draconian.

I was amazed at the police response at Boston and Sandy Hook. Your police look absolutely terrorfying from my view across the pond. It looks like something from a dystopian movie.

reply to post by MrWendal

Police in this Country are not permitted to search every single person in an area simply because some other person committed a crime and might be in that area.

You may want to see the Patriot Act. Yes they are permitted to do this...you see...they just did. And it will be done again and again, and I am fine with that...and so are many others. You are free to disagree and to not like it, you can petition the government to change the laws or go ahead and file a lawsuit if you feel what they did is already illegal. But do something besides just cry about it on the internet.


And yes, the lockdown worked by keeping the suspect contained in the area. The public always needs to assist the police in cases, this is no different.

The fact is that the actions they took resulted in the capture of the suspect...you can continue to complain about it, but their actions were sucessful.

reply to post by LogicGrind


So, if the City of Boston has no law saying that it is illegal to own another person as a slave.....

There is no problem with that?

You are saying that the Boston PD doesn't need to heed the US Constitution.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

We have already been over that STATES, specifically State judges, are bound by the Constitution first.

The Boston PD are not the State nor are they State judges.

Clearly you are not familiar with the Oath of Honor that Police Officers take after graduating from the Academy? What about the Oath of Office the Police Commissioner takes? The Mayor?

Each Oath actually says they will uphold the Constitution.

reply to post by LogicGrind


Lets take a look at how British police arrest 3 extremists planning a mass suicide campaign.



A little less over the top than the Hollywood dystopian action thriller of Boston. Yet theses guys were planning to kill a lot of people.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


This is just more conspiracy sensationalism. It was police force doing they're job!
Let me ask you this. Do you have a figure or even an estimate of how many "doors" they knocked down.

So in this situation you want to throw out police state, martial law, all that and more.
But what if it were a situation where people's lives were in danger from a hurricane.
Or earthquake. Would you mind if "TPTB" went knocking down doors to save lives.

Nah, you wouldn't mind I bet, you would probably criticize them for not doing enough!

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

So, if the City of Boston has no law saying that it is illegal to own another person as a slave.....

There is no problem with that?

You are saying that the Boston PD doesn't need to heed the US Constitution.

Words mean things, the 13th specifically says "within the United States", so no, they can't own a slave.

If you think the Boston PD violated the Constitution...then please show me what part they violated. I have asked this over and over. Those that opposed my opinion but are honest with themselves have admitted that they didn't violate anything...but there are others that are clinging to the idea that they did because they don't understand that it isn't possible for them to.

So please, point out where the Boston PD violated the US Constitution.