America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

Last post 11 years ago by strikeanywhere. 243 replies replies.
5 Pages12345>
What martial law in America looks like
Jump to Bottom | Previous Topic | Next Topic
jimbud Offline
#1 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 8:57 PM EST
Joined: 12-18-2009
Posts: 3,998
Ripped off from Wade, BTW.


Read the below and then check out this video.  This was done over a 20 block area of Boston, allegedly. The video really brings it home.

WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8&feature=youtube_gdata_player
nitro6526 Offline
#2 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:18 PM EST
Joined: 09-13-2010
Posts: 1,022
So I am to assume.that you do or did not agree with that? A suspected terrorist is loose after throwing IED's out of the window of a vehicle and fled on foot to that area. Unless someone had someone or something to hide why would they care?

Yeah yeah I know the 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. A KNOWN TERRORIST was in the area. I kinda think that warrants a house to house search. I could be wrong, but I doubt any reasonable person with nothing to hide would care if their house was searched.
jimbud Offline
#3 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:25 PM EST
Joined: 12-18-2009
Posts: 3,998
nitro6526 wrote:
So I am to assume.that you do or did not agree with that? A suspected terrorist is loose after throwing IED's out of the window of a vehicle and fled on foot to that area. Unless someone had someone or something to hide why would they care?

Yeah yeah I know the 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. A KNOWN TERRORIST was in the area. I kinda think that warrants a house to house search. I could be wrong, but I doubt any reasonable person with nothing to hide would care if their house was searched.

Disagree with it. Strongly. You start trading away liberties and you are in trouble. There had been no declaration of marshal law. The citizens had a right to decline a search, let alone an invasion like that. We aren't that far away from this kind of state when people start making the argument "why would you mind if you aren't hiding anything." And lots of good dogs have been shot barking at this kind of stuff. Liberty has limits and, admittedly, it's limitations....
dubleuhb Offline
#4 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:30 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Did you watch the video ? There was nothing voluntary about it. Cops yelling when they put their hands down! No way they should be forced out of there house like perps.
Am I to assume you would welcome this type of search for whatever reason as long as they gave you one ?

That video should worry anyone that cherishes their rights.

What do you think happened to the K-9 units ? Seems they could have found this guy with the help of dogs.
paulkeck Offline
#5 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:42 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
Give up 1 amendment and you basically give them all up. Ridiculous is what it is
dubleuhb Offline
#6 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:44 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
Jimbud, your inbox is full. To answer your question, no it was in response to #2
jimbud Offline
#7 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:48 PM EST
Joined: 12-18-2009
Posts: 3,998
dubleuhb wrote:
Jimbud, your inbox is full. To answer your question, no it was in response to #2

Cleaned out. Sorry.
dpnewell Offline
#8 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:50 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Wow, I'm sure glad there are some others that are upset with this too.

Nitro, not to pick on you dude, but come on now. This was illegal, no matter what the reason. How long before they decide to do random illegal searches of folks homes? Maybe we can start performing house to house searches for guns or drugs. It's for the public good, and if you have nothing to hide, why would you object, right?

We're not Japan, where police show up at your home twice a year to do a "survey". But then again, maybe I shouldn't be giving this administration any ideas.
nitro6526 Offline
#9 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:53 PM EST
Joined: 09-13-2010
Posts: 1,022
I will respectfully agree to disagree. I may see it differently. If a person with terrorist intentions was in my neighborhood and the police wanted to search it, by all means go ahead. I don't care.
My opinion is that a guy running around blowing 8 year old kids warrants extenuating circumstances. He and his brother attempted to shoot and blow up police. That alone would make them nervous entering homes/areas/basements etc.
It was/is not.a matter of giving up liberties in my mind, but extraordinary circumstances that lead to his being captured. Of these people that feel their liberties were "violated", you think they will trade places with the 3 that died or more than 180 injured? Or how about just the 1 campus security that died?

I
dpnewell Offline
#10 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 9:59 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Nitro,
The Constitution guarantees me the right to be secure in my home against illegal searches. Because I’m not willing to give up that right, I’m suppose to trade places with the murdered and injured? How is that argument even the least bit logical?
paulkeck Offline
#11 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:01 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
nitro6526 wrote:
I will respectfully agree to disagree. I may see it differently. If a person with terrorist intentions was in my neighborhood and the police wanted to search it, by all means go ahead. I don't care.
My opinion is that a guy running around blowing 8 year old kids warrants extenuating circumstances. He and his brother attempted to shoot and blow up police. That alone would make them nervous entering homes/areas/basements etc.
It was/is not.a matter of giving up liberties in my mind, but extraordinary circumstances that lead to his being captured. Of these people that feel their liberties were "violated", you think they will trade places with the 3 that died or more than 180 injured? Or how about just the 1 campus security that died?

I

So basicly your saying it is ok to capture a law breaker by breaking the law. I agree he is a terrorist but next time who knows why they will break the law you bend rules for even a seemingly good reason it gets easier and easier to keep doing it!!
nitro6526 Offline
#12 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:08 PM EST
Joined: 09-13-2010
Posts: 1,022
I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.
dubleuhb Offline
#13 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:10 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
No way do they have the right Nitro to treat those people like that. That is just one house that was videotaped. I can only imagine if someone was armed to protect themselves and the cops came in like that and seen a weapon.

I cannot for any reason see why they needed to go about it this way.
teedubbya Offline
#14 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:11 PM EST
Joined: 08-14-2003
Posts: 95,637
I'm terribly uncomfortable with this. Do you mean to tell me if the government thinks a bad guy is in my area they can for wanly search my home at gunpoint? How is this different than what the Red coats did that sparked our desire for rights?

Bad ju ju.
dubleuhb Offline
#15 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:12 PM EST
Joined: 03-20-2011
Posts: 11,350
nitro6526 wrote:
I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.

Not sure they had the option. Hands on your head ? are you kidding me ?
dpnewell Offline
#16 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:12 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
Keep in mind folks, that these illegal home searches did not locate the fugitive. A home owner, breaking police orders to stay in his home, went outside to check his boat, and found the fugitive. The terrorist was found, only because a home owner refused to obey the illegal "house arrest"order. Of course the house arrest order was made palatable to the masses by calling it "shelter in place".
paulkeck Offline
#17 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:16 PM EST
Joined: 02-24-2013
Posts: 2,686
nitro6526 wrote:
I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.

I agree and I would also but the point I think everyone is trying to make is it should be our right not be pulled out by gun point
jimbud Offline
#18 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:16 PM EST
Joined: 12-18-2009
Posts: 3,998
"shelter in place" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Absent a declaration of marshal law there is no such command. But it is now tripping off everyone's tongue like we use it everyday.
dpnewell Offline
#19 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:16 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
nitro6526 wrote:
I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.


That's perfectly fine. If there is a killer loose, and you want to give up your rights, and allow police to search your home without a warrant, you are entitled to do so. Problem I see here, is that folks unwilling to give up their rights, where illegally forced to do so at gun point.
dpnewell Offline
#20 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:23 PM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
jimbud wrote:
"shelter in place" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Absent a declaration of marshal law there is no such command. But it is now tripping off everyone's tongue like we use it everyday.


BTW, it's MARTIAL Law. Marshal law is a comic book. Yes, I know, I'm an arse, lol.
Gene363 Offline
#21 Posted: Mon, Apr 22 2013, 10:44 PM EST
Joined: 01-24-2003
Posts: 30,876

There is more: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ1-ZUN3Li0
ZRX1200 Offline
#22 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 2:32 AM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbqVqI1cWXc&feature=share
DadZilla3 Offline
#23 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 3:14 AM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
We've lived in an era of euphemisms for quite some time now...'shelter in place' sounds much less threatening to the average person than 'martial law', just like 'sequester' is much less politically damaging than 'random largely symbolic budget cuts put in place just to piss people off'.

Why wasn't a formal declaration of martial law made in the first place? Not enough time? Dunno. That's a question for the Massachusetts governor.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#24 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 5:51 AM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,591
WHO ORDERED THE CODE RED????
TMCTLT Offline
#25 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 6:46 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
I hope like Hell Nitro NEVER runs for political office.....Shame on you .

Before you know it we'd have countless "extenuating circumstances" on the books that qualify as good reason to enter peoples homes with no warrant brandishing pistols in our faces!!!!
HockeyDad Offline
#26 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 6:52 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
dpnewell wrote:
Nitro,
The Constitution guarantees me the right to be secure in my home against illegal searches. Because I’m not willing to give up that right, I’m suppose to trade places with the murdered and injured? How is that argument even the least bit logical?



You're forgetting the "extenuating circumstances" clause in the constitution.
HockeyDad Offline
#27 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 6:55 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
All of you should be proud of how fast Boston was able to raise a substantial heavily armed military force and lock down large portions of the city.
TMCTLT Offline
#28 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 7:18 AM EST
Joined: 11-22-2007
Posts: 19,733
HockeyDad wrote:
All of you should be proud of how fast Boston was able to raise a substantial heavily armed military force and lock down large portions of the city.





Thanks for telling the rest of us how we should feel HD, I'd be more proud if these people were still allowed to defend themselves from this kind of thing.....

In my estimation, if they already knew who they were looking for.(we all saw photos of the two brothers)...why make all these people leave their own homes and treat them like criminals?
HockeyDad Offline
#29 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 8:59 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
TMCTLT wrote:
Thanks for telling the rest of us how we should feel HD, I'd be more proud if these people were still allowed to defend themselves from this kind of thing.....

In my estimation, if they already knew who they were looking for.(we all saw photos of the two brothers)...why make all these people leave their own homes and treat them like criminals?



[email protected]
DrafterX Offline
#30 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 9:14 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I had this discussion with a couple freinds over the weekend... mixed results of course.. an ex-fireman friend said he's been part of this type of search before and assured me they weren't reporting found pot plants and stuff... Think
bloody spaniard Offline
#31 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 9:36 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
As much as I hate to say it, this is what happens when you have open borders and unrestricted air travel... you have to subject the American public to draconian measures. Btw, as compelling (and horrifying) as your video was Jimbud, I think that Gene's was a little more even handed- showing both the terror AND appreciation showed by the evicted inhabitants.

Stay tuned for more islamic terror countermeasures. And, no, your guns won't help against Government home invasions. It'll only get you killed faster.

Beer
dpnewell Offline
#32 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 9:40 AM EST
Joined: 03-16-2009
Posts: 7,491
DrafterX wrote:
I had this discussion with a couple freinds over the weekend... mixed results of course.. an ex-fireman friend said he's been part of this type of search before and assured me they weren't reporting found pot plants and stuff... Think


Of course not. They where only reporting houses that had Bibles and guns (dang blasted gun and religion clingers).
HockeyDad Offline
#33 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 9:57 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
Bloody,

Air travel is not unrestricted. It is where you most feel the impact of the "security state" we've created. Especially international travel.
bloody spaniard Offline
#34 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 10:12 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
^ uh huh
I thought Putin warned us about the Tsarnaev's... Guess the FBI was befuddled by a "typo" in the visa.
dstieger Offline
#35 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 10:56 AM EST
Joined: 06-22-2007
Posts: 10,889
Anybody else watch this and keep hearing the dude from Counter Strike in your headset: "Terrorists Win" ?
DrafterX Offline
#36 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:03 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
I'm guessing there were some very unhappy puppy-dogs in da hood that day... Mellow
HockeyDad Offline
#37 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:24 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
bloody spaniard wrote:
^ uh huh
I thought Putin warned us about the Tsarnaev's... Guess the FBI was befuddled by a "typo" in the visa.



The report is Russia asked the FBI to investigate him before they let him return to visit Chechniya. The USA wasn't issuing any visa. That would have been Russia's role.
bloody spaniard Offline
#38 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:34 AM EST
Joined: 03-14-2003
Posts: 43,802
"WASHINGTON — Senator Lindsey Graham said Monday the FBI told him it was initially unaware Tamerlan Tsarnaev had traveled to Russia early last year because of a clerical error: His name was misspelled. Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old terrorism suspect who died Friday after a shoot-out with law enforcement officers, had been flagged in 2011 as a potential danger by Russian authorities.

“He went over to Russia, but apparently, when he got on the Aeroflot plane, they misspelled his name,” Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on Fox television. “So it never went into the system that he actually went to Russia.”

Members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and homeland security specialists cautioned that the full facts of Tsarnaev’s six-month stay in Russia have not yet surfaced. But they said Graham’s account raises questions about potential holes in the system for screening international travel and for linking databases so that all potential dangers involving individuals are in one place.

Representative William R. Keating, a Bourne Democrat who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he was assured his committee would receive briefings and hold hearings....blah blah blah"
HockeyDad Offline
#39 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:39 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
That's a BS story. His passport was scanned on departure from the US, arrival in Russia, departure from Russia, and arrival in the USA.

The names have to match.
DrafterX Offline
#40 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:41 AM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
ya, where's that Bullsh^t flag smiley at..?? Think
BuckyB93 Offline
#41 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:51 AM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,243
DrafterX wrote:
I'm guessing there were some very unhappy puppy-dogs in da hood that day... Mellow



Bad day for the Jehova Witnesses too.
BuckyB93 Offline
#42 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:54 AM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,243
bloody spaniard wrote:
"WASHINGTON — Senator Lindsey Graham said Monday the FBI told him it was initially unaware Tamerlan Tsarnaev had traveled to Russia early last year because of a clerical error: His name was misspelled. Tsarnaev, the 26-year-old terrorism suspect who died Friday after a shoot-out with law enforcement officers, had been flagged in 2011 as a potential danger by Russian authorities.

“He went over to Russia, but apparently, when he got on the Aeroflot plane, they misspelled his name,” Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said on Fox television. “So it never went into the system that he actually went to Russia.”

Members of the Massachusetts congressional delegation and homeland security specialists cautioned that the full facts of Tsarnaev’s six-month stay in Russia have not yet surfaced. But they said Graham’s account raises questions about potential holes in the system for screening international travel and for linking databases so that all potential dangers involving individuals are in one place.

Representative William R. Keating, a Bourne Democrat who sits on the House Committee on Homeland Security, said he was assured his committee would receive briefings and hold hearings....blah blah blah"



They probably forgot to turn off the auto correct feature.
HockeyDad Offline
#43 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 11:55 AM EST
Joined: 09-20-2000
Posts: 46,199
BuckyB93 wrote:
Bad day for the Jehova Witnesses too.


They don't shelter in place well?
DrafterX Offline
#44 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 12:06 PM EST
Joined: 10-18-2005
Posts: 98,588
HockeyDad wrote:
They don't shelter in place well?



apparently not... some poor bassard had to shoot his puppy-dog not long ago here cause they decided he needed to find Jesus or something.... the puppy-dog started eating them when the door opened..... Mellow
BuckyB93 Offline
#45 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 12:13 PM EST
Joined: 07-16-2004
Posts: 14,243
Dunkin Donuts steps up to the plate during the lock down. Time to make the donuts....

http://www.nbcnews.com/business/boston-dunkin-donuts-stays-open-serve-first-responders-6C9523170
ZRX1200 Offline
#46 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 12:23 PM EST
Joined: 07-08-2007
Posts: 60,673
Bureaucracies never have clerical errors!


Just like a warning message about an eminent attack on Pearl Harbor didn't sit on someones desk in DC.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#47 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 12:33 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,591
BuckyB93 wrote:
They probably forgot to turn off the auto correct feature.



Maybe that's why the Kenyan King called Pootie Poot then!
DadZilla3 Offline
#48 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 1:07 PM EST
Joined: 01-17-2009
Posts: 4,633
HockeyDad wrote:
All of you should be proud of how fast Boston was able to raise a substantial heavily armed military force and lock down large portions of the city.

We could do a lock down and search in my neighborhood, and we wouldn't even need the military.
DrMaddVibe Offline
#49 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 1:15 PM EST
Joined: 10-21-2000
Posts: 55,591
DadZilla3 wrote:
We could do a lock down and search in my neighborhood, and we wouldn't even need the military.



You live in Detroit?
SMGBobbyScott Offline
#50 Posted: Tue, Apr 23 2013, 1:32 PM EST
Joined: 07-24-2012
Posts: 3,328
BTW...because the searches were door to door (I.e. not random), included a clearly identified threat, and were included within the "national security threat" umbrella, the searches were completely Constitutional through several SCOTUS tests. So while it may seem disturbing, our current Constitutional protections of privacy are severely lacking and rather than engaging the community in the capture of the fugitives they chose to put the entire community on lock down...a poor choice IMHO and considering what we now know about the 2nd suspect now.
Users browsing this topic
Guest
5 Pages12345>
Back to Top