Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

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

page: 4
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


Colorado legalized it, they didn't ban it.

This directly contradicts federal law. So the feds can still bust your for it, but the local PD won't...and the local PD isn't violating anything for not busting people for it...they are doing their job.




posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


It is very important to the debate.

The overwhelming response we have all seen did not happen until AFTER all the things you listed. But after the response, he was stuck...he couldn't do anything but try to hide.

He could have escaped easily...he went back to his dorm, worked out with his buddies and him and his brother went on a little crime spree.

They could have easily just got the hell out of the area, they decided not to for whatever reason.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 



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


There you go...special circumstances and the rights/safety of others.

The safety of others were in danger, so each individual person in the locked down area no longer had a right to deny police from entering their home. You do not have a right to deny a search if it puts me and my family in danger.

You are kind of proving my point.
edit on 29-4-2013 by LogicGrind because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


Colorado legalized it, they didn't ban it.

This directly contradicts federal law. So the feds can still bust your for it, but the local PD won't...and the local PD isn't violating anything for not busting people for it...they are doing their job.

Excuse me, I assumed you meant that they banned it.

However, I would like to exactly how it contradicts federal law. Please elaborate.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


Colorado legalized it, they didn't ban it.

This directly contradicts federal law. So the feds can still bust your for it, but the local PD won't...and the local PD isn't violating anything for not busting people for it...they are doing their job.

Excuse me, I assumed you meant that they banned it.

However, I would like to exactly how it contradicts federal law. Please elaborate.


Really?

www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:36 PM
link   
reply to post by LogicGrind
 





This directly contradicts federal law.


YES, the Colorado law directly contradicts FEDERAL law. But it does not CONTRADICT the US Constitution. And that is why the law can be interpreted at the state level. Laws can exist at the state, county, and municipal, levels of government, that contradict US CODE, but no law can exist at any level of government that contradicts the US Constitution.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:37 PM
link   
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


What I described was not a special circumstance but a daily, normal circumstance.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:38 PM
link   
reply to post by totallackey
 


So show me how the Boston PD violated the US Constitution.

You already admitted special circumstances for not having to abide by the Constitution if it places others in danger...there was a clear and present danger with a known bomber on the loose in the area.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:45 PM
link   
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


People that are willing to give up freedoms so blindly really amaze me. I think that many would look at things differently if they had a swat team swarm their house.

I feel that this is a struggle that has been going on for many many years and we are watching our freedoms be stripped away at a frightening rate.

I love quotes so I will leave you with two:




"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "
Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759




Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan
edit on 4/29/1313 by Martin75 because: forgot source
edit on 4/29/1313 by Martin75 because: can't spell



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


Obviously, you do not read and that is why you cannot understand why your argumentation is wrong. If you read my entire post, you will see I understand the Boston PD did not violate the US Constitution.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


It is very important to the debate.

The overwhelming response we have all seen did not happen until AFTER all the things you listed. But after the response, he was stuck...he couldn't do anything but try to hide.

He could have escaped easily...he went back to his dorm, worked out with his buddies and him and his brother went on a little crime spree.

They could have easily just got the hell out of the area, they decided not to for whatever reason.

How about we check out some of the facts in this case.

They had guns to have a firefight with the police, an SUV, and bombs. They prepared so much in case of police finding them, but as soon as the police found out it was them, they decided to stay in Boston instead of hiding in another state or country.

It makes no logical sense that they would prepare so much for the police, and actually have a firefight with them, but at the same time, did not do what almost anyone would do in these kind of situations, hide in another state or country.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


Obviously, you do not read and that is why you cannot understand why your argumentation is wrong. If you read my entire post, you will see I understand the Boston PD did not violate the US Constitution.


I can't read what isn't there.

When I read your post, you hadn't made your edit yet.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


Colorado legalized it, they didn't ban it.

This directly contradicts federal law. So the feds can still bust your for it, but the local PD won't...and the local PD isn't violating anything for not busting people for it...they are doing their job.

Excuse me, I assumed you meant that they banned it.

However, I would like to exactly how it contradicts federal law. Please elaborate.


Really?

www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...

And how does it contradict the US Constitution?



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by extraterrestrialentity
 



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.


Colorado legalized it, they didn't ban it.

This directly contradicts federal law. So the feds can still bust your for it, but the local PD won't...and the local PD isn't violating anything for not busting people for it...they are doing their job.

Excuse me, I assumed you meant that they banned it.

However, I would like to exactly how it contradicts federal law. Please elaborate.


Really?

www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov...

Can you please show a small text that shows it contradicts federal law? It is not very easy to read such a long page with small texts.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 09:56 PM
link   

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.


Wow! I can't believe you actually put that in writing on the internet for others to see.

It kinda takes away from your cred. I don't mean to throw in the strawman here, but that's got to be the most inane statement I've seen on this website. It is soooooo wrong in sooooo many ways.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:00 PM
link   
reply to post by LogicGrind
 


Please...that post was finalized a full half hour prior to your request. And it was edited within two minutes of original posting...and my edit did not include my final comment regarding the Boston PD conduct.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:01 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 


Scary to read isn't it. Read through the threads on here. I do believe that is what msm is leading people to believe. I have heard this so many times since Boston. What ever happened to history class?



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 10:53 PM
link   
Here's my question and please forgive me if has already been talked about:

Of the homes that were searched, how many subsequent arrests were made? Did they check the citizens I.D.'s or run peoples names? Just curious.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 11:14 PM
link   
reply to post by lynxpilot
 



It kinda takes away from your cred. I don't mean to throw in the strawman here, but that's got to be the most inane statement I've seen on this website. It is soooooo wrong in sooooo many ways.


If it is soooooo wrong, then it should be very easy for you to explain how wrong it is.

And yet you didn't even try.



posted on Apr, 29 2013 @ 11:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by MidnightSunshine
Here's my question and please forgive me if has already been talked about:

Of the homes that were searched, how many subsequent arrests were made? Did they check the citizens I.D.'s or run peoples names? Just curious.


Zero from what I have heard.

If anyone has any other reports, I have yet to see them. You also don't see the reports of the good things the cops did like run to the store to get milk for a family that had a baby.

But this isn't stopping people from crying about the police doing a damn good job capturing the suspect.
edit on 29-4-2013 by LogicGrind because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
54
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join