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

Ditto

Actually yesterday...

http://www.cigarbid.com/...oomberg-at-it-again.aspx

The house to house search in watertown is still the most disturbing part to me (other than the actual bombing of course). I'm starting to see more and more video where it appears to me the police can pretty much enter our homes, hold us at gun point and trample our rights all because a bad guy may be in the area. Bad juju and it seems folks don't really care as long as in the end they get the bad guy. It's the same overreaction that got us the patriot act everyone was so comfy with under Bush but now have realized is ****.

Armed men enter your basement while others pound on the side and front doors. Let's say you are not fully aware of what's happening but you do happen to have a gun or guns for protection..... ummmmmm

I think it is only appropriate that I make mine a waffle cone

If you were out of town and your wife or daughter was being held at bay by a terrorist, you'd all see this differently.

Buncha whining alarmists.

If you watch the video, the residents were allowed to leave.
The lockdown was an attempt to catch the motherfuker who planted a bomb next to an 8 year old boy who is now dead.

That house was cleared by the cops because their information told them it was suspect. I'm shocked that people can't grasp the gravity of the situation.

You're outraged at the wrong people, folks.

A terrorist blows up your kid and you're angry because the cops inconvenienced your afternoon soaps?

Whining paranoid bitches.

So, what you're saying is, if next week, some sick deranged piece of trash kills an 8 year old kid, and the police thought that he MAY be hiding in YOUR house, you would have no problem with 2 dozen para-military officers busting into YOUR home without a warrant, sticking guns in YOUR family’s faces, forcing YOUR family into the street at gun point, and then illegally searching YOUR home.

Sad that you wouldn’t have a problem with it. Some of us would, and if that makes us whining paranoid bitches in your mind, so be it.

You should have posted this ten minutes earlier. It wold have saved me some time.

"Boston Strong" is a nice PR campaign to help erase the memory of "shelter in place".

My post was pretty clear cut Paul. I agreed with tailgater. So many hypotheticals being tossed around here there's no point in wasting more time discussing it, as the what-ifs could go on forever. In THIS situation and the hunt for THIS sick ****, I don't see anything wrong with what transpired.

If you agree with the whiners, your opinion isn't likely to change. Mine isn't either.

Tailgater, there's just so much irony in your post.

You call us names. You live in an area that celebrates "Patriot's Day", but now I wonder how many people up in that area even know what "Patriot's Day" is supposed to be about? An early ballgame at Fenway and the marathon? Riiiight. You're ready to waive your rights that people fought and died to secure. Maybe your "Patriot's Day" is more about celebrating the "Patriot Act" because that's about the only sensible conclusion I can draw from your post.

None of us were saying the actions of the bombers weren't heinous. That's not the subject of the thread. It's about martial law and the government acting as if the Fourth Amendment does not exist or apply.

Maybe an appropriate solution would be to setup states where your government protects you. You can turn in your guns and let the police "protect" you as they see fit. The rest of us whining, paranoid bitches can grasp our guns and our Bill of Rights in the other states.

Well, uh, you'd be wrong.

The Bill of Rights only applies to the federal government. It may or may not apply to state governments. The FBI - to my knowledge - was not in charge of the manhunt, but the Boston PD. That then becomes an issue for state law. I'm pretty sure that most states already have laws on the books the deal with the apprehension of dangerous criminals

But hey, if you want to willingly take into your home and protect a guy who just killed several people, and maimed others, and then think you can stand on your Constitutional rights when you harbor the fugitive, knock yourself out.

And yeah, you are a whiny b*tch. And kinda dumb too...

Well, the boat could be considered a home with outdoor plumbing.

LOL.

This is such an ignorant statement. The Fourth Amendment does not protect against unreasonable seizures ONLY, it protects against unreasonable searches and seizures.

The homeowner caught him not these "searches" the police then proceeded to shoot up his boat on an unarmed suspect who managed to shoot himself in the neck to commit suicide?

Great stuff.

If you had a kilo of coke on your coffee table when they came in you are going yo jail. It's in plain sight at that point.

If you shoot at the person entering your basement you are likely dead because the other cops will tear you apart.

If you answer the door and tell the cops the dude isn't in there that should be sufficient.

Bad ju ju

No, you'd show up to answer the door in in your best lingerie because you're a sucker for a man in uniform.

Ummmm....wrong! Since the searches were not random, they were considered legal according to SCOTUS and anything that they find in the course of their investigation can be used. Although they are unlikely to bother UNLESS they use it as leverage to gain further information.



Very little of the Constitution does not also apply to state governments as well. It is true that certain elements do not apply but those are few and far between. Search and seizure falls within the federal rights...

Yeah, you're dumb.

Police surrounded the boat and there was a standoff for about an hour and a half. A State Police helicopter peeked at him from above, using a special infrared camera. Police deployed “flash bang” grenades to stun and distract him, Davis said. Police were cautious in their approach, concerned that Tsarnaev could be wearing a suicide bomb vest.

Yeah the FBI was there. The FBI hostage team actually pulled the guy out of the boat. That doesn't mean the FBI had jurisdiction, or the FBI was in charge as of the moment the guy was captured. The FBI was there because it was most likely a terrorist bombing, it was a high-profile manhunt, and offered up some teams that the Boston PD needed (they do that, you know). But without a motive, they most likely don't really have jurisdiction. In fact, they do not have the manpower to pull off that kind of manhunt, period.

They do get jurisdiction if the criminals cross state lines (which they didn't), do something to a federal facuility (which they hadn't), were terrorists or spies (no one knew that at that point), kidnapped someone (which they carjacked someone, but that is a state felony I believe), or are a major drug dealer (which they weren't). There might have been some federal charges concerning explosives, but those usually get leveled after the perp is caught. The known crfimes were murder, conspiracy to commit murder, and so on. Those are STATE felonies.

On the other hand, what Timothy McVeigh did was an attack on a federal building, and in that instance - because a federal building was involved - they CLEARLY had jurisdiction.



Because there are federal drug laws that conflict with state laws. Which is why they are waiting to figure out what the federal government will do. Duh.

Unfortunately, the federal government doesn't have a law enforcement agency large enough to execute violations of federal controlled substance laws, so they cannot go after the users. The can, however, go after the distributors. But the problem is that most of those agencies have to work with state and local agencies to execute warrants and arrests. And that's where the conflict lies.

You can argue that the federal laws are unconstitutional, and you'd probably be correct, but that example is a horrible example to cite. A better argument would be one about the gun debate. If federal laws need to be respected in the states, why do virtually ALL of the states have laws that protect individual gun ownership? If federal law superceeds state law, there's no point to put that in there. The point of those protections is because under state law, those rights need to be protected.




Ok, will the word "stupid" suffice? I got about twenty different words that I can use to call you dumb, and about fifty-thousand ways to call you dumb in thirty words or less. Let me know your preference.

Your apology is accepted.

Anything they find in the course of their investigation can be used? I'll buy that.

The problem you run into is that the investigation at this point was for a bomber, not a drug dealer, and the drug dealer is not the buy being sought, or is involved with the bomber. If the drug dealer is willingly harboring the bomber, trhen yeah they can nail that guy on drug charges as well.

But they'd have to prove that the drug dealer was helping the bomber.

You're funny.

Did you completely ignore all the references to show the State Law does not trump Federal Law.

You should have saved yourself the time on the dissertation about a state police helicopter, jurisdiction, and yada yada. We all know that, and police agencies from other states got involved. So what? Federal Law is still the law of the land. Those searches were a violation of the Fourth Amendment. That's the point.

No need for childish name calling. I enjoy debate, but your rhetoric indicates your insults are better used to describe yourself.

You are making the assumption that just because they exist, they are necessary.

States enact gun laws because the constituents feel like their rights are more protected when they exist -- they aren't necessary. The supremacy of the Second Amendment over state law was recently upheld by the Fed App. Court. They ruled IL's State ban on concealed carry was unconstitutional. So how does that work?

Laws to organize/regulate the militia, yes. His point was that the laws were to protect gun rights. There are many gun owners who are not members of a state militia whose rights are protected by the Second Amendment.

I'm not saying I disagree with this statement, but what is your source or precedent to make this claim?

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court ruled that the Second Amendment "codified a pre-existing right" and that it "protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home" but also stated that "the right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose". They also clarified that many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court are consistent with the Second Amendment.