strikeanywhere wrote:So now I'm dumb? Why don't you do a quick Google search to see if the FBI was involved. I'll save you some time -- they were.
And if you're too lazy to check my statement about the involvement of the FBI
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.
strikeanywhere wrote:If State Law trumps Federal Law, then why are Colorado and Washington still waiting to see how the Federal government is going to handle the passing of their marijuana law (or lack thereof).
State Law does not trump Federal Law. Are you serious?
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.
strikeanywhere wrote:Don't tell me I'm dumb when you obviously need to check your facts and educate yourself.
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.