Poll: Police State USA: Boston Area Raids
- Thread starter xDarc
- Start date
The legal definition of a WMD is not the same as the popular definition created by the media. I know I was pretty confused at that charge as well; then I ran across this Wired article, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/tsarnaev-charged/ .Product Placement said:
OT: A smidge heavy handed? Yeah, but not exactly what I would call an "Orwellian nightmare". No what I think was far more terrifying was the veritable angry mob that rose from the darkened depths of the internet to harass anyone that was unfortunate enough to be caught in the crossfire of misinformation. If anything it looked like a brief recreation of a Salem witch hunt. I am less afraid of an overzealous police force than I am of a frenzied mob of misinformed citizens condemning people as guilty until proven innocent.
I pity the poor bastard if his case goes to a jury trial. We the people have already judged him guilty, all that's left is crucifying him in the media for public entertainment.
Strange that you would pick my post in particular to say that about. I'm not even calling Police State or brutality. I'm merely noting that our country is at its worst when we decide that safety is more important than freedom and fairness. The Alien and Sedition act, the internment of Japanese Americans, the House Un-American Activities Committee, and the McCarthy Trials are all examples of this.ZeroMachine said:
I think that we can be truer to our ideals by not abandoning freedom at the first sign of trouble. There are far greater threats to life in this country than terrorism, and I don't think it says anything good about us if we say our values are expendable when we're afraid, especially if what we fear is things like this. Terrorists will have to work a lot harder just to catch up with the murder rate in this country, let alone all the other things we shouldn't be dying from.
Huh. The OP is the same guy who posted the thread about strategies for taking down predator drones, and talked about how in "ten years or so," police will be using them to attack targets in the US. (Here)
I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.
I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.
So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.
I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.
I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.
So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.
Well to make this easy for all of you afraid of the cops seeing your drugs in the house when they search due to an actual legal reason.
a: put them in a closed space that is too small for a person to hide in.
b: make sure the container is not see through
c: now if the police are looking for a danger to the people or one of the reasons they can search your house for an armed person you have an argument in court that they had no right to search the area you had your stash as it could not have held a threat to the community or the officers
I really wish I lived in this America that everyone keeps saying existed in the good old days.
a: put them in a closed space that is too small for a person to hide in.
b: make sure the container is not see through
c: now if the police are looking for a danger to the people or one of the reasons they can search your house for an armed person you have an argument in court that they had no right to search the area you had your stash as it could not have held a threat to the community or the officers
I really wish I lived in this America that everyone keeps saying existed in the good old days.
You may have a point, may I see you in the killing room?Lionsfan said:
You know it's nice being able to look back and call the police dumb for not looking right where the guy was hiding.
"Hey, we know there's a terrorist hiding in the area, mind if we make sure he's not in your crawl space?" seems to be a pretty reasonable request. If there wasn't a bombing a couple days before and they said something like that, I'd tell them to go away.
It's always interesting to see how some people react to news most people wouldn't bat an eye at. Reminds me of the time someone in one of my college classes said that Europe was a mock-democracy with secret police just because some Eruopean countries outlawed anti-semmetic hate speech.
EDIT:
On a side, it doesn't matter what the police see in your house. I'm pretty sure they can't do shit. Anything they find is evidence they gathered without a warrant or reasonable suspicion on you making it useless in court.
"Hey, we know there's a terrorist hiding in the area, mind if we make sure he's not in your crawl space?" seems to be a pretty reasonable request. If there wasn't a bombing a couple days before and they said something like that, I'd tell them to go away.
It's always interesting to see how some people react to news most people wouldn't bat an eye at. Reminds me of the time someone in one of my college classes said that Europe was a mock-democracy with secret police just because some Eruopean countries outlawed anti-semmetic hate speech.
EDIT:
On a side, it doesn't matter what the police see in your house. I'm pretty sure they can't do shit. Anything they find is evidence they gathered without a warrant or reasonable suspicion on you making it useless in court.
I know, I've never seen such outright ignorance on this forum. And that says a SHIT load.TheDrunkNinja said:
Wait, fuck, it's that guy?Compatriot Block said:
Paranoia, OP. Look it up. See a therapist.
Now, to all the people in this thread claiming "police state", "violation of rights", "no warrant no entry", I'm going to say one last thing and then once again I'll fade away into obscurity because oh my shit within three threads I joined I'm already pissed off by the outright ignorance of the Escapist yet again.
First, and let me make this easy for all to read:
WE, THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON/THE BOSTON AREA, FULLY SUPPORTED EVERYTHING OUR POLICE FORCES DID TO FIND THE BOMBERS.
Second, there was a citywide warrant issue to Watertown, making your "NO WARRANT" argument completely and utterly wrong and moot.
Third, police were giving supplies to families that were stuck in their homes for the duration of the manhunt. Funny how many people selectively ignore that.
Fourth, and I really can't state this enough:
STOP ACTING LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXACTS OF A SITUATION WITHOUT DOING YOUR GOD DAMNED RESEARCH AND LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. WE DON'T FEEL LIKE OUR RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE LIVED IN A POLICE STATE. WE WANTED THOSE BASTARDS CAUGHT. SO JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. YOU ARE NOT A BEACON OF FREEDOM. YOU ARE NOT AN ENLIGHTENED MIND SPEAKING TO SHEEPLE. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL THINGS CIVIL RIGHTS. YOU ARE A RANDOM PERSON ON A FORUM. STOP BEING AN IGNORANT ASS.
THE END
Just wanted to second this.ZeroMachine said:
... Yeah, that's all I got. Nothing more to add. Just thought it was important enough to bare a repeat in posting.
Seriously guys, the more you know, deal with the real, the power is yours, and of course...
I'm done. Make up your own minds of who to listen to. You're all bright, young whippersnappers. You can figure it out.
Well it's nice to know you speak for the entire city of Boston, and that you fully support a police action which shut down a city, disrupting a million people, to find one guy who wasn't even in the area they were searching. Also, there is no such thing as a city wide warrant. When a judge signs off on a warrant, it must include a description of the specific place to be searched and the specific item(s) sought. I don't think you can just fill one out and put "Boston" and "Some guy..."ZeroMachine said:
The fact is the governor asked the metro area to stay inside, the police asked to search houses, and for the most part people rolled over on command. It's not really necessary to declare martial law and go breaking down doors when people are so docile. Makes it look a lot less evil, but it is still the wrong thing to do. I don't think you realize this is a very disturbing precedent to set. So you go ahead and be angry and toss the word ignorant around like a football during practice. I hope someday you'll realize that what makes this country great is the principles it was founded on.
Liberty is not something to be taken lightly or brushed aside without a second thought because there might be a bad guy out there somewhere.
Hear, hear!ZeroMachine said:
As a New Englander with family in the Boston area, not only did I support the manhunt to find these bastards but my relations on scene did too. This bull about the USA being a police state are nothing more then paranoid delusions the OP is fooling him or herself with.
The problem with tin foil hats is that they actually increase the intensity of brain signals to the outside world http://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boost-receptivity-to-government-signals/wombat_of_war said:
Edit: I also think this is appropriate
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/brookline/files/2013/04/BrooklinePoliceWithMilk_20131.jpg
If they asked politely -(in that given the circumstances, it was an actual question. "Please" would be optional), but if they were rude and just barged in, I would tell them GTFO. Would I be concerned about being arrested? No. Would I be concerned about receiving a police beating? No. I would be concerned how I'd be spending the money from from the king sized lawsuit I'd level against them.
It's not only popularized by the media. Politicians have been referring to mass scale destructive weapons like nuclear and chemical weapons as WMD, as well. Hell, Bush's solitary justification for going to war with Iraq was to deny Saddam from owning WMD's. I'm pretty sure that nobody was thinking about hand grenades, at the time.KeyMaster45 said:
Historically, the english language has always been contolled by the definition that the public give to the word. In most cases, the popular definition IS the legal definition.
Just my two cents and I'll shut up about it now.
Well yeah, if there was a criminal suspected to be hiding in my house while I wasn't there, I'd let the police have a look around. Doesn't mean they can't be quick and efficient about it and not cordon off the place.
Here's the thing, the last time they'd seen him before catching him there was a shootout, he was a bomber, it's entirely plausible that he'd planted more or had broken into a house and taken hostages.
As cool and edgy as it is to pretend that the police are morally corrupt thugs with a hero complex when you're whole city is locked down because a fleeing potentially armed murderer is running for his life it's generally a good idea to let the people trying to catch him actually look for him.
As cool and edgy as it is to pretend that the police are morally corrupt thugs with a hero complex when you're whole city is locked down because a fleeing potentially armed murderer is running for his life it's generally a good idea to let the people trying to catch him actually look for him.
Silly me. Here i was thinking that police were supposed to be apprehending criminals, not killing them outright. It is true that tranquilizers run the risk of not being effective vs weight class, but if your using a gun on a person small enough to easily subdue physically, than your doing it wrong. Concerning yourself with possibly OD'ing a perp, doesn't make much sense when your comparing it to a weapon that is specifically designed to kill people. The point of police is to get criminal's into a court of law for their crimes, not dispense street justice.Gottesstrafe said:1. Against humans, tranquilizers require an estimation of weight. It would be impractical to carry, as you would usually not have time to accurately estimate weight, and you would have to carry several different dosages to adjust for different weights. Too little a dosage would have little to no effect, too high a dosage could cause respiratory collapse and kill people, and in some cases the tranquilizing agent can induce rage and make apprehension all the more difficult.Aramis Night said:It is not an appropriate justification for killing a dog. Subduing a dog isn't difficult for a single grown man with no weapons. We have tranquilizers. In light of that i'm having a hard time seeing how we justify cops having non-tranquilizer guns at all.Ryotknife said:I have a feeling that the whole "kill the dog" policy is due with the stories ive been hearing a lot lately of drug dealers training dogs to attack police so that when they raid his home he can use his dog as a distraction while he runs away.Fappy said:Jeez, that's some heavy stuff. I'm really glad the first video didn't actually show the dog... that would not have been a nice thing to seeAramis Night said:
Which is a really scummy thing to do, but hey, drug dealers.
2. Nobody is going to be intimidated into surrendering by tranquilizer guns.
3. Tranquilizer darts lack stopping power and require time to take effect. They're also either bolt or break action, making them even more impractical in a firefight.
4. Tranquilizer guns (pistols and rifles) have lower effective ranges compared to their more lethal counterparts, not to mention that tranquilizer darts aren't very aerodynamic to begin with.
Going to need a citation on that. I've seen plenty of photos of people with their faces mauled off by pit bull terriers, but not many of people effortlessly subduing one empty handed, especially one bearing down on them rapidly. Unless of course you're suggesting that every officer be issued a standard-issue pets-only tranquilizer gun on the off-chance that any building they storm happens to include domesticated animals, in which case I'll just reaffirm the impracticality of it. A paintball gun loaded with CS pellets would probably be more effective and flexible, something that's already in their arsenal.Aramis Night said:
Call me speciesist, but I'd rather read in the morning paper that a drug dealer's attack dog was killed during an arrest than an officer or civilian was horribly maimed/killed because the officers on the scene were terrified of animal abuse allegations being leveled against them.
As for intimidation, I don't know too many people who are all that crazy about getting injection's the normal way. Fear of needles is pretty common, let alone fear of them being fired at you at high velocity. That and it would remove the whole romantic notion that some people have about going out in a blaze of glory vs. the cops if it would still end with them in a cage facing trial as opposed to dead and with no further concerns. People fear life in prison far more in most cases.
Most firefights dont take place over long ranges anyway. They are more likely to happen in tight spaces and short ranges. Police are not engaging in battlefield war time fighting. It is not as though i'm advocating for only the use of tranquilizer darts, just replacing the guns with them. They still have many other non-lethal weapon's at their disposal. we have tasers, stun guns, gas, batons. With all these options there is no good reason for guns to be a part of the arsenal.
It must be nice to live in a fantasy world capable of sustaining these delusions. In reality liberty will always lose out to security, or even a loaf of bread if times are dire enough. As for America being a police state, were it furnished with a people's militia with teeth the attacks would never have happened.xDarc said: