Boston ISN'T a Farce at all...

page: 3
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by YapTalk
Wow Defcon!

My right to freedom exceeds EVERYONE'S Rights!

So do yours, your mom's, your children's, every single member of ATS etc!


Sorry I had someone at the door.

Anyway, one persons rights conflicting with another's is the BASIS of law, specifically criminal law.

Your right to be noisy vs my rights to quite = Disturbing the peace...
Your right to go where you want vs my right to not allow you on my property = Trespassing...
Your right to carry a gun vs my right not to be threatened by it = Brandishing...
Your right to touch me vs my right to not be touched by you = Battery...
Your right to make a threatening remark vs my right not to be threatened = Assault...

Shall I keep on going?

Police have the right to suspend another citizens rights based on certain criteria.
That is what a terry stop, detainment, and arrest are.


Just to point it out...

you have no "right" to be noisy
you have no "right" to go where you want
you have no "right" to touch other people
you have no "right" to make threatening remarks.

Why would you think any of these things are your right?

CJ




posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Nah. Having cars, people, trains traveling all around whilst a terrorist who just attacked the city is on the loose is completely smart.

They should have told everyone to go grab their kids and join in on the search. That would have been better.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 
You have no right to do these things because they invade the rights of other people...
You also don't have the right to do whatever you want during a police emergency if you are putting other folks in harms way by doing so.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by enjoies05
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


Nah. Having cars, people, trains traveling all around whilst a terrorist who just attacked the city is on the loose is completely smart.

They should have told everyone to go grab their kids and join in on the search. That would have been better.


That is a humdinger of a post. Shut down the city because of one man. Now that is smart. I wonder why they didn't do it immediately? I guess they are kind of dumb?

CJ



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 
You have no right to do these things because they invade the rights of other people...
You also don't have the right to do whatever you want during a police emergency if you are putting other folks in harms way by doing so.



Actually you have no right to these things because they are not "rights". I don't believe anywhere in the constitution does it mention any of these things being your "right". You CAN do these actions, but they can cause you to be arrested, as you point out. You have very defined "rights" and none of these are them.

CJ



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
Meter Maids doing work during the shutdown...revenue generation at it's finest.

mayors24.cityofboston.gov...



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by YapTalk
Wow Defcon!

My right to freedom exceeds EVERYONE'S Rights!

So do yours, your mom's, your children's, every single member of ATS etc!


Sorry I had someone at the door.

Anyway, one persons rights conflicting with another's is the BASIS of law, specifically criminal law.

Your right to be noisy vs my rights to quite = Disturbing the peace...
Your right to go where you want vs my right to not allow you on my property = Trespassing...
Your right to carry a gun vs my right not to be threatened by it = Brandishing...
Your right to touch me vs my right to not be touched by you = Battery...
Your right to make a threatening remark vs my right not to be threatened = Assault...

Shall I keep on going?

Police have the right to suspend another citizens rights based on certain criteria.
That is what a terry stop, detainment, and arrest are.


Right, but my right to be free and walk down the street (in general) does not infringe upon anyone rights whatsoever.

As far as the "your right to vs my right too," well, that could apply to practically anything, if one were so inclined to make the argument. Simply walking down the street minding one's own business does not infringe on anyone's rights. But one can always feel threatened in some form or fashion by something, so the argument can get silly.

As far as terry stop, detainment, arrest, etc, generally apply to suspicion or probably cause. While one might be "suspicious" simply by being the only one walking in a locked down city, my right to freely walk does not infringe on anyone else's right (as your previous argument suggested). This is also why I have a problem with neighborhoods being locked down (like what recently happened in GA with the firefighters taken hostage: I'm coming home from work, unless my house is part of the crime scene, I have the right to go to my house—my private property—even though I can understand it might be a safety issue). Disaster areas are a bit different, in restriction of freedom (like walking through a city after a disaster), but preventing me from reaching my home: um, no.

And while I do not see a conspiracy here and agree with the OP more or less, I DO have a problem with the entire city of Boston becoming a temporary police state, even though I can see how it makes the job finding this person MUCH easier, which brings the valid point of the Ben Franklin quotation.

Furthermore, while one is on one's own private property, unless that property is directly part of an active crime scene, one has the right to stand outside in one's yard, one does not have to "remain inside," and the cops can't just come searching door to door (especially inside) without a warrant.

These are things problems I have with everything that transpired.

ETA:


Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 
You have no right to do these things because they invade the rights of other people...
You also don't have the right to do whatever you want during a police emergency if you are putting other folks in harms way by doing so.



How does my freedom to travel or go out put anyone else in harm's way or invade others' rights??

edit on 20-4-2013 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 09:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Actually you have no right to these things because they are not "rights". I don't believe anywhere in the constitution does it mention any of these things being your "right". You CAN do these actions, but they can cause you to be arrested, as you point out. You have very defined "rights" and none of these are them.

CJ

So you're saying you don't have the right to protest?
You don't have the right to have a party?
You don't have the right to play a radio outside?
You don't have the right to carry a firearm?

Yet when you do those things to a level where they invade on your neighbors right to peace and security, they become crimes.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by LiquesenceSimply walking down the street minding one's own business does not infringe on anyone's rights.

It sure does when its impeding the police's ability to sort through, and thereby catch someone who is endangering the public.


Originally posted by Liquesence
I have the right to go to my house—my private property—even though I can understand it might be a safety issue

Your going into the area causes you to be in harms way. If you become in danger, then the police have to put themselves in further danger to rescue you. Your presence may also put the other hostages in danger if the criminals decide that you are an undercover officer who is trying to get a forward position on them.


Originally posted by Liquesence
Furthermore, while one is on one's own private property, unless that property is directly part of an active crime scene, one has the right to stand outside in one's yard, one does not have to "remain inside," and the cops can't just come searching door to door (especially inside) without a warrant.

The fact that there is an armed and dangerous person in the area does meet the criteria for reasonable suspicion that they may be hiding on your property, or that you might be being held hostage. Reasonable suspicion gives them the right to do a limited search of your property.

I have seen this done in other instances as well.

We had a baby taken from the local hospital, and the “father” was hiding in the area. They had him tracked into a square mile by triangulating his cell phone. They searched all the buildings in that area looking for him, no warrant required.


Originally posted by Liquesence
How does my freedom to travel or go out put anyone else in harm's way or invade others' rights??

Because you are increasing the amount of traffic they have to sort through in order to find the person that is trying to slip through their cordoned area. It can cause other issues as well, such as mentioned above.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Go ahead exercise your so called right to do as you please... to walk where you want and to make yourself as big of an idiot of yourself, in an environment with gunshots, bombs, and stressed out people, police and otherwise.

They'd lock you up for public endangerment and disorderly conduct. Not to mention possibly dragging you to hospital for mental evaluation on the grounds that you were a threat to yourself and others.... And they would be in the right to do so. More to the point they could put you before a judge and make the charges stick. After which you could get a trial and make your case that your rights were infringed and likely another mental evaluation.

I do not know what military or LEO experience people have, I just know what I have.

In a situation like what was going on in Boston, to not follow instructions would have endangered others. Endangering others will get you arrested. Or worse.

All the 'tough talk' about what people will do or not do is just talk.

They make Darwin Awards for people who think they can do stupid crap that endangers themselves or others. Posthumous awards.

But please, go ahead the next time something like this happens, put on clothing just like the perps, run around in the fire fight with your head cut off. Endanger other citizens, and police etc. If you are lucky you will survive that stupidity, or end up in a ward with padded rooms. If not, there is an award for that level of stupidity, and you will have _earned_ it.

I've seen people who talk crap, who then crap themselves when faced with danger, and the quiet heroic types.
I don't believe that 95% of the folks making these inanely stupid bravado claims, have the cojones to do it.

But we'd be rid of them soon if they did.
M.
edit on 20-4-2013 by Moshpet because: Because.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
Actually you have no right to these things because they are not "rights". I don't believe anywhere in the constitution does it mention any of these things being your "right". You CAN do these actions, but they can cause you to be arrested, as you point out. You have very defined "rights" and none of these are them.

CJ

So you're saying you don't have the right to protest?
You don't have the right to have a party?
You don't have the right to play a radio outside?
You don't have the right to carry a firearm?

Yet when you do those things to a level where they invade on your neighbors right to peace and security, they become crimes.


You have the "rights" to live within the laws defined by the country you live in.
Breathing is not a right, it is a function of living.
Notice I never once said you don't have a right to carry a fire arm. That is the 2nd amendment of the constitution.
Most certainly in many parts of the world there is no "right" to carry a firearm.
Nor is there the right to protest.
Having a party can put you in prison.
Same with playing a radio outside.
I think we are not agreeing what "rights" entail. I believe you are speaking of laws.
Until laws were enacted in this country (USA) blacks were afforded almost no "rights".
Laws determine your rights.

CJ



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 





Go ahead exercise your so called right to do as you please... to walk where you want and to make yourself as big of an idiot of yourself, in an environment with gunshots, bombs, and stressed out people, police and otherwise.


Sure. Except that is Boston on a good night. People seem to exercise that right nightly. Funny that it was a civilian breaking the curfew who was having a smoke outside who found the perp. Who would have thought? Perhaps if people were allowed to live their lives this guys would have been caught sooner. So called rights indeed.

CJ



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:16 PM
link   
There was a drill on the same day and during the same time as 9/11 not far from New York requiring all the fighter jets to be off somewhere else, not defending the nation.

There was a drill on the same day and time as London bombings, depicting how they would react if there were bombs that blew up on the trains and on a bus, which is exactly what ended up happening.

Colorado University held an identical drill, the same day as the Batman massacre.

On the same day and time as the Sandy Hook shooting there was a government funded mock emergency drill being conducted at a nearby local school.

On the same day as the Boston marathon bombing there are rumors that there was, you guessed it, a drill going on and even someone announced over the speakers that they would be blowing up a mock bomb or something to that affect. Some spectators even stated they saw much more police around than in the past, and heavily armored people on the tops of buildings, and even bomb sniffer dogs walking around.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 

Your just not grasping the basic concept here, and I cannot think of a simpler way to put it.
Criminal law is based on limiting your rights when they overstep the rights of other citizens...
So, for example...
You don't have the right to kill, because other people have a right to live.
You don't have a right to steal because others have a right to ownership.
You don't have a right to put others in danger, because others have a right to safety.
You don't have a right to be obscene, because other have a right not to be sujected to it.
Etc...
Sorry, I just cannot find a simpler way to express it.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by defcon5
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 

Your just not grasping the basic concept here, and I cannot think of a simpler way to put it.
Criminal law is based on limiting your rights when they overstep the rights of other citizens...
So, for example...
You don't have the right to kill, because other people have a right to live.
You don't have a right to steal because others have a right to ownership.
You don't have a right to put others in danger, because others have a right to safety.
You don't have a right to be obscene, because other have a right not to be sujected to it.
Etc...
Sorry, I just cannot find a simpler way to express it.


No I understand what you are saying. Too bad that isn't reality.
I DO have the right to kill, when my government sends me to do it.
I DO have the right to steal, when it is in the interest of my government.
I DO have the right to put others in danger, when my government says it's ok
I DO have the right to be obscene. You know there is a legal porno industry, yes?
And considering several billion people on this earth have no legal right to own firearms, you might want to check that one.

CJ



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


I don't see how the OKC bombing is even relevant. Boston wasn't put on lockdown on the day of the marathon bombing, neither was OKC on that day, either.

Had the suspect(s) shot a cop at, say, Brown Mackie College and then went on a maniacal shooting/bombing spree while being chased by cops all the way down to Norman, then going into hiding... maybe it'd be relevant. But none of that happened. Instead, McVeigh was pulled over for speeding or some such a week and a half later. Apples and oranges.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by rudeboyrave
There was a drill on the same day and during the same time as 9/11 not far from New York requiring all the fighter jets to be off somewhere else, not defending the nation.

Uhm... Not quite true.
We had cut back the majority of our "ready" fighters under the Clinton administration after the fall of the Soviet Union. A fighter plane takes hours to fuel, load, brief the pilot, and fly to the scene.

Similarly, Norad is not involved in the business of tracking internal US traffic, that is the FAA's job. Norads job was to watch the NWS line for oversea incursions. These radar lines give the US enough time to prep fighter for intercepting bombers without having to pay to keep them on the “ready” around the clock.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by LuckyLucian
reply to post by ColoradoJens
 


I don't see how the OKC bombing is even relevant. Boston wasn't put on lockdown on the day of the marathon bombing, neither was OKC on that day, either.

Had the suspect(s) shot a cop at, say, Brown Mackie College and then went on a maniacal shooting/bombing spree while being chased by cops all the way down to Norman, then going into hiding... maybe it'd be relevant. But none of that happened. Instead, McVeigh was pulled over for speeding or some such a week and a half later. Apples and oranges.


You may want to address this to the Washington Post.

CJ



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by ColoradoJens
reply to post by Moshpet
 





Go ahead exercise your so called right to do as you please... to walk where you want and to make yourself as big of an idiot of yourself, in an environment with gunshots, bombs, and stressed out people, police and otherwise.


Sure. Except that is Boston on a good night. People seem to exercise that right nightly. Funny that it was a civilian breaking the curfew who was having a smoke outside who found the perp. Who would have thought? Perhaps if people were allowed to live their lives this guys would have been caught sooner. So called rights indeed.

CJ


You need to review the events of the capture.
The boat owner went out for a smoke, -after- the all clear was given.
Even the MSM-Lame-stream media got it right.

He didn't nip out for an illicit smoke, unless he was sneaking out from his wife to do it.


But, he didn't endanger himself or others as it was in the 'all clear', now to say it might have been smarter to not peak into the boat, and just call the police. But he was smart enough to get back in the house and make the call and let people who could handle it, handle it.

Check the facts.
M.



posted on Apr, 20 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Moshpet
 


Interesting. Because someone said it was "all clear" (which obviously was wrong) a civilian found the perp and what happened? HE WAS ARRESTED. So the "all clear" was WRONG and once allowed to go outside a civilian MADE THE ARREST HAPPEN. If he didn't "endanger" himself the guy would not have been caught.

CJ
edit on 20-4-2013 by ColoradoJens because: (no reason given)





 
52
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join