RON PAUL: Police manhunt for Boston Marathon bombing suspect scarier than attack

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

 

mate... the question is, why do you keep defending this kind of behavior? This is not in your best interest as citizen why defend it? You're a medal? A praise of some kind? Civilians dont get purple hearts mate... defend your own, not the ones who are clearly against you.

I'm sorry I don't buy into the whole "the government and the police are against me" rhetoric...I just don't.

I'm defending it because what the boston PD did was the right move for the situation. I'm sorry you don't like it, and you are free to have a different opinion. But the fact that they got both suspects within 4 days of the bombing says they did something right.

I'm in more danger from my fellow citizens than I am from any police or government agent.

The fact that the suspects were identified by civilians and their location was reported by civilians says they did pretty much everything wrong with all that military setup.

reply to post by FraternitasSaturni

The fact that the suspects were identified by civilians and their location was reported by civilians says they did pretty much everything wrong with all that military setup.

Really?

That seems to be pure speculation on your part. The fact is that they kept him in the area that he was last spotted because of their response. The fact that a civilian checked his yard and noticed some things suspicious and called the police does not take away from the fact that they contained him in the area. And without such a response, who knows if that civilian would have been looking around his back yard to see if any tiny thing was out of place.

For you to say that an aware civilian found the suspect means that the police were wrong in their response is just illogical. There is absolutely no connection that you can make to say that since a civilian found him, then the police were wrong.

Here is an interview with Ron Paul, as usual he sums it up very well.....



This was another interesting report with Glenn Beck

Originally posted by LogicGrind
There was no right answer for the response.

If they wouldn't have responded overwhelmingly, people would be crying about how the police/government isn't doing their job. And when they did respond with overwhelming force, they still get criticized.

In the end, they got both the suspects in only 4 days...kind of hard to argue with those results.

And one of the suspects were found by a civilian.

Really shows how the police were putting their heart and soul into the search.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by LogicGrind
There was no right answer for the response.

If they wouldn't have responded overwhelmingly, people would be crying about how the police/government isn't doing their job. And when they did respond with overwhelming force, they still get criticized.

In the end, they got both the suspects in only 4 days...kind of hard to argue with those results.

And one of the suspects were found by a civilian.

Really shows how the police were putting their heart and soul into the search.

Yes, he was found by the civilian because he was forced to stay in the same location and hid due to the overwhelming response.

Otherwise he would have been free to escape.

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by LogicGrind
There was no right answer for the response.

If they wouldn't have responded overwhelmingly, people would be crying about how the police/government isn't doing their job. And when they did respond with overwhelming force, they still get criticized.

In the end, they got both the suspects in only 4 days...kind of hard to argue with those results.

And one of the suspects were found by a civilian.

Really shows how the police were putting their heart and soul into the search.

Yes, he was found by the civilian because he was forced to stay in the same location and hid due to the overwhelming response.

Otherwise he would have been free to escape.

So he managed to get an SUV, have a firefight with the police, and apparently "light bombs", but was too scared to leave the area he was hiding in?

Nice logic, LogicGrind.

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Originally posted by Epirus

Originally posted by LogicGrind
If any of you think the Boston PD/SWAT violated the US Constitution, please provide the text of the Constitution that they violated.

4th Amendment - The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

I'm almost 100% you're trolling and you've been fed very well in this thread...now go away.

edit on 29-4-2013 by Epirus because: (no reason given)

And the fourth amendment applies to.......the Federal Government.

Most states have adopted Constitutions that include most of the same protections, but the Boston PD can NOT violate the US Constitution.

Bottom line, the US Constitution applies to the Federal Government.

You need to go back to school...read the supremacy clause in the United States Constitution(Article VI Clause 2:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.

Article VI, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, known as the Supremacy Clause, establishes the U.S. Constitution, federal statutes, and U.S. Treaties as "the supreme law of the land." The text provides that these are the highest form of law in the U.S. legal system, and mandates that all state judges must follow federal law when a conflict arises between federal law and either the state constitution or state law of any state.
The "supremacy clause" is the most important guarantor of national union. It assures that the Constitution and federal laws and treaties take precedence over state law and binds all judges to adhere to that principle in their courts. - United States Senate[1]

Supremacy Clause

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

So he managed to get an SUV, have a firefight with the police, and apparently "light bombs", but was too scared to leave the area he was hiding in?

Order of events are important...and you don't seem to know the order of events that happened that night.

Originally posted by inverslyproportional
reply to post by smurfy

 

The picture your referencing is in the op of this thread.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

It went on for 37 pages at present, and over 700 replies.

Man, I am so glad that someone took up on that. I am near sure that picture was already posted here on another earlier thread as incidental, but no matter, I'm glad to see a good and decent debate on things.

reply to post by LogicGrind

The Constitution outlines how the Federal Government operates, what powers it has, and what it is forbidden from doing. It does not apply to citizens nor local police departments...other laws and/or State Constitutions do, but the United States Constitution does not.

I am sorry, but you are flat out wrong...

The law is progressive, and it starts out at the very top with the US Constitution. Then there is US Code, then the state constitution, state administrative code, county code, municipal code. There can be NO LAW contray to the US Constitution.

In other words, if a person acting on a municipal law and in doing so, violates the US Constitution, then that person has committed a CRIME!

Period.

Having given you your proper understanding of the law in the United States of America, I quote this follow up post of yours here...

If any of you think the Boston PD/SWAT violated the US Constitution, please provide the text of the Constitution that they violated.

And will let you know that not one person here will be able to fulfill this request...because not one point of the US Constitution was violated during this display...

Was the display sad?

Yep.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

So he managed to get an SUV, have a firefight with the police, and apparently "light bombs", but was too scared to leave the area he was hiding in?

Order of events are important...and you don't seem to know the order of events that happened that night.

Not in our argument. In court, sure, in our argument, no. The order of events is irrelevant here.

The fact is that he was able to do all those things, but yet was scared to come out of hiding.

reply to post by Epirus


Yes, state judges are bound to uphold the US Constitution if a local law says something different than a federal law.

But the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the Boston PD anymore than the 1st amendment does. The boston PD can very clearly take away your "right to free speech"...they can take away your 2nd amendment (get pulled over by a cop and have a gun in your car, license or not, watch them confiscate it while they talk to you)...go ahead and try it on them.

The Constitution applies to the Federal Government...in cases of law, State judges as well as Federal judges must look first to the US Constitution if a State or local law differs from it.


This whole discussion is moot since they didn't violate the 4th anyway, there have been many court cases that have set prescedence for exceptions for a search without warrants...public safety is one of them. They weren't searching the house to arrest or incriminate the occupants, they were searching to find a known public threat.

reply to post by totallackey

There can be NO LAW contray to the US Constitution.

Explain Colorado's recent marijuana law.

In other words, if a person acting on a municipal law and in doing so, violates the US Constitution, then that person has committed a CRIME!

So when a business doesn't allow you to bring a gun on their premises, they are commiting a crime for infringing on your right to bear arms?

No, no one would be stupid enough to suggest that is true...because everyone knows that the 2nd amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by Epirus

 

Yes, state judges are bound to uphold the US Constitution if a local law says something different than a federal law.

But the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the Boston PD anymore than the 1st amendment does. The boston PD can very clearly take away your "right to free speech"...they can take away your 2nd amendment (get pulled over by a cop and have a gun in your car, license or not, watch them confiscate it while they talk to you)...go ahead and try it on them.

The Constitution applies to the Federal Government...in cases of law, State judges as well as Federal judges must look first to the US Constitution if a State or local law differs from it.


This whole discussion is moot since they didn't violate the 4th anyway, there have been many court cases that have set prescedence for exceptions for a search without warrants...public safety is one of them. They weren't searching the house to arrest or incriminate the occupants, they were searching to find a known public threat.

You are 100% incorrect in your understanding of state vs. federal law but not 100% incorrect in your understanding of precedence in regards to the 4th amendment.

reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

Not in our argument. In court, sure, in our argument, no. The order of events is irrelevant here.

The fact is that he was able to do all those things, but yet was scared to come out of hiding.

Yes, order of events is always important...or someone could argue that the overwhelming response didn't stop them from bombing the Boston Marathon

Let me help you out...no one knew where they were, they killed an MIT officer, they stole a car, they owner of the car escaped and notified the police, the police came and found them, they had a fire fight, one brother died, the other ran away, the police LOCKED DOWN THE AREA, the other brother remained in the area and hid and was caught.

Order of events is important, the lock down happened AFTER all the things you mentioned.

reply to post by Epirus

You are 100% incorrect in your understanding of state vs. federal law but not 100% incorrect in your understanding of precedence in regards to the 4th amendment.

That is fine if you disagree with me, many people are in disagreement on that point...federal judges are in disagreement on that point.

The fact still remains, no one has shown how the Boston PD has violated the US Constitution.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by Epirus

 

Yes, state judges are bound to uphold the US Constitution if a local law says something different than a federal law.

But the 4th amendment doesn't apply to the Boston PD anymore than the 1st amendment does. The boston PD can very clearly take away your "right to free speech"...they can take away your 2nd amendment (get pulled over by a cop and have a gun in your car, license or not, watch them confiscate it while they talk to you)...go ahead and try it on them.

The Constitution applies to the Federal Government...in cases of law, State judges as well as Federal judges must look first to the US Constitution if a State or local law differs from it.


This whole discussion is moot since they didn't violate the 4th anyway, there have been many court cases that have set prescedence for exceptions for a search without warrants...public safety is one of them. They weren't searching the house to arrest or incriminate the occupants, they were searching to find a known public threat.

Look, you are surely under some delusion here...

There can be no law in ANY STATE, COUNTY, OR MUNICIPALITY, that is contrary to the US Constitution. PERIOD! There can be NO LAW written in the US (US CODE OR STATE CODE) that is contrary to the US Constitution. Do you understand this?

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by totallackey

 

There can be NO LAW contray to the US Constitution.

Explain Colorado's recent marijuana law.

In other words, if a person acting on a municipal law and in doing so, violates the US Constitution, then that person has committed a CRIME!

So when a business doesn't allow you to bring a gun on their premises, they are commiting a crime for infringing on your right to bear arms?

No, no one would be stupid enough to suggest that is true...because everyone knows that the 2nd amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

And exactly how does the banning of marijuana contradict the US Constitution? It is a Schedule I drug. Should we legalize coc aine because of the constitution? Of course not.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity

 

Not in our argument. In court, sure, in our argument, no. The order of events is irrelevant here.

The fact is that he was able to do all those things, but yet was scared to come out of hiding.

Yes, order of events is always important...or someone could argue that the overwhelming response didn't stop them from bombing the Boston Marathon

Let me help you out...no one knew where they were, they killed an MIT officer, they stole a car, they owner of the car escaped and notified the police, the police came and found them, they had a fire fight, one brother died, the other ran away, the police LOCKED DOWN THE AREA, the other brother remained in the area and hid and was caught.

Order of events is important, the lock down happened AFTER all the things you mentioned.

Once again, it is not important in our debate. I do not care if he did those things when he was caught, the fact is that he was able to all those things, but yet, couldn't escape when he had the chance before the lockdown.

Explain Colorado's recent marijuana law.

Find something in the US Constitution that makes marijuana illegal.

So when a business doesn't allow you to bring a gun on their premises, they are commiting a crime for infringing on your right to bear arms?

Specious argumentation...a private business has the right to be secure. My rights end when the other person(s) rights are affected...

Please study some law and logic and philosophy before you hurt yourself or others.

No, no one would be stupid enough to suggest that is true...because everyone knows that the 2nd amendment applies only to the Federal Government.

If by everyone, you mean you and the mouse in your pocket, then yes...you are correct...