Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Next time the FBI enter your home without a warrant, question you, and seize property in the middle of the night, go to court and get the evidence considered inadmissable and ultimately two officers fired from the force; I might start caring, untill then, lets start caring about the actual violations of the Constitution and the implications.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

It was a voluntary lock-down and nobody was prosecuted because of the police entering their homes and finding THEIR GIANT WEED STASH (smoke everyday). I would agree with you if there was a violation of privacy and abuse propagated by the police; however, it isn't the case.

I think it's more prudent to examine the possible (and probable) violation of due process by the authorities.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

I agree with this statement. People keep saying it was marshal law with a curfew but people were free to walk the streets without prosecution. There are plenty of pictures of people in the streets and in their cars. Just because people chose to respect the request by law enforcement does not make it marshal law. I also saw no evidence of anyone refusing to let police search their homes and demanding a warrant. They literally just went through people's homes and cleared rooms. These were limited searches. To put it in your own words, " lets start caring about the actual violations of the Constitution and the implications."

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Were people giving the option of not allowing police into their homes?
Did police have warrants or permissions to search these homes?
When people were giving the "option" to leave their houses, where they able to leave with their hands anywhere but on their heads?
Were people free to walk about that day?
Were these people searched and frisked?
Were people free to use public transportation that day?
Were people other arrested that day for being suspicous?
Were businesses forced to close or could they operate at will?
During this "voluntary" door-to-door lockdown/search, did police catch any suspects?

I think this is a non-issue. We are talking about an exception to the rule that the surpeme court has already ruled on, is practiced widely, and they had plenty of time to cover their asses while the suspect was in recovery before proceeding.

Ryan_G

iTrader: (8)

Do you have evidence of any violations I have not been made aware of or are you just asking questions to which you do not know the answers?

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

Yes
Yes (permission)
This question is worded poorly, don't understand what you're trying to get at
Yes
No
Yes, but I think public transit may have been in limited circulation due to the flight risk of Tsarnaev
Maybe?
Businesses weren't forced to close
Technically, no because the suspect was one block outside of their "turn over every rock" perimeter, but still within the search area


I don't know why you wouldn't find a violation of due process to be concerning. Due process is well defined and shouldn't be suspended or violated for any American citizen.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

keypoints:
• Govenor orders a million people to stay home.
• Residents "trapped" in homes.
• those inside werent allowed to leave
• those outside not allowed inside
• face-to-face with a swat officier's muzzle
• each time the swat team would "rescue" a family...they would rush into the home...
• "they banged at the door and there were two guns pointed at me, and they yelled 'get out, get out' and I asked if I could get me shoes, and he just yellwed 'get out, get out' and I was like okay."
• "If you weren't already inside when they started searching, you were not allowed back inside; 14-15-16 hours for some of the people."
• "neighbors kept from getting inside their homes for a better part of a day"

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

you guys are a bunch of fasicts. oh no, homeboy didnt get his lawyer when asked during legal intial questioning, but hundreds of homeowners were FORCED out of hteir houses at gunpoint; no big deal.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

PoliceStateUSA would seem to have an agenda.

I would be more open to evidence that didn't have an obvious bias and agenda.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

Once again with the ad hominem attacks. I haven't attacked you at all, I am responding to your opinions and sources; I haven't brought in a judgement of your character or anything of the like.

There is no reason to do attack the person. Refuting an argument is 100% OK, attacking the person is unfair and unnecessary.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

yes.

There's plenty of video and accounts of people saying police knocked on the door and they were forced out. They didn't ask to search, they were told to leave thier own homes.

Did you want to actually answer the question?

Did police have a warrent to enter the homes? y or n?
Did police have permissin to search the homes? y or n?

Demanding a warrant or not consenting is not what I asked.
and I've seen video where they were yelled out by police and then searched. Like this:



This homeowner was told to put his hands up and leave his house. He was unable to deny/allow access, they went in without presenting a warrant or given permission to enter the house.

The people in the above video were frisked after being forced, by gunpoint, force, and cohersion, out of their home. Stop and frisk specifically states that the suspect must be suspected of committing a crime or in the act of committing a crime. Where these people suspected of either? The 4th amendment is supposed to protect us from everything that happened in that video.

Was there a threat to public transportation, or did they just not want him using public transportation to leave town?



Does that mean it didn't happen or you weren't there to "see" it happen?


They were asked: Many businesses close their offices as manhunt for bombing suspect continues - Boston.com
While they my have made their own decision, they were instructed to close.
The governor issued people to stay home, businesses were forced to close.

so, no?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I didnt know policestateUSA wrote the scripts for the local news cast in Boston!

all I did was pull excerpts and quotes directly out of a news cast.

I dont care who hosts the video.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

That video you posted shows nothing. You can't hear anything and you're just conjecturing the narrative you want to hear.

I watched the PoliceStateUSA video and it was clearly edited and not shown in context with the rest of the news report. I'll also say that the media did a **** poor job in covering the entire affair due to the 24 hours news cycle and the absolute amount of greed that corporate news' message is shaped by.

Not all media sources are equal. This is why CNN was specifically told by the police to not film police movements. This why Alex Jones' Info Wars was ignored by the FBI during their press conference.

I don't know why you're more concerned about conjecture of a police state versus what might become a clear violation of 5th Amendment rights.

e: clarity, left out a few words

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Because it was clear that a multitude of 4th amendment violations most likely happened, and the "violation" of one person's 5th amendment rights is not clear or even a blip on the radar.

I remember that long night, when my mom asked if we could call our lawyer, and we were denied...

look at that, I even have EMPATHY for suspect #2.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

What 4th Amendment rights were violated? You keep on mentioning it; however, you haven't provided any evidence to back up your claims.

Also, ad hominem attacks again? It's not even Halloween man, you shouldn't be giving these out to anybody on the street.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

There's a press conference going on right now. Topics include Syria and possibly the Boston bombing incident.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

where are these attacks?

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

The last one is a bit of a stretch, but I read it as sarcasm. I'm not offended, I just think it's inconsiderate.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

the last one was not an "attack," it's a facutal statement.

GAMO

iTrader: (1)

Like I said, it was a bit of a stretch. That and I have no context for it.