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

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by lynxpilot

 

We have already been over that STATES, specifically State judges, are bound by the Constitution first.

The Boston PD are not the State nor are they State judges.

Clearly you are not familiar with the Oath of Honor that Police Officers take after graduating from the Academy? What about the Oath of Office the Police Commissioner takes? The Mayor?

Each Oath actually says they will uphold the Constitution.

Support, not uphold...not enforce...not obey...support.

Words mean things.

reply to post by LogicGrind

Words mean things, the 13th specifically says "within the United States", so no, they can't own a slave.

OH, so the crap you said about the US Constitution only applying to the Federal Government was just that.... crap?

reply to post by LogicGrind


You need to look up Earl Warren and the "nationalization of the Bill of Rights".

reply to post by woodwardjnr


If we had the same gun laws as England, I would be perfectly fine with that response here in the United States.

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

reply to post by LogicGrind

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

This cleared things right up.

Nothing to see here folks.... the Constitution means NOTHING.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

That's the opposite of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Defense is both a right and responsibility of individuals. Well-armed individuals means no need to have ridiculous gestapo-like domestic forces.

Originally posted by butcherguy

reply to post by LogicGrind

 

Words mean things, the 13th specifically says "within the United States", so no, they can't own a slave.

OH, so the crap you said about the US Constitution only applying to the Federal Government was just that.... crap?

Not at all, but words mean things.

The 13th amendment still defines how the fedearl goverment acts...and in this instance it acts to ban slavery in the entire united states. It is up to the Federal Government to enforce that...hence it applies to the federal government.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

This cleared things right up.

Nothing to see here folks.... the Constitution means NOTHING.

Oh right, since I have a disagreement about the 2nd amendment, then my views are invalid about everything else.

How very dishonest and group think that view point is.

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

That's the opposite of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Defense is both a right and responsibility of individuals. Well-armed individuals means no need to have ridiculous gestapo-like domestic forces.

Except our well armed individuals are idiots.

I'm sorry, but I have a low opinion of the American public...in general...they are stupid and stupid people need to be governed.

You saw the people applaud, its worse than the Bread & Circuses of Imperial Rome


Modern Bostonian Rome is 'Baked Beans & Spectacle' where the government creates political approval by farting in the face of your liberties

Originally posted by LogicGrind
You may want to see the Patriot Act. Yes they are permitted to do this...you see...they just did.

So you have read the current Patriot Act? Can you link it so we can all read exactly what it says and what it permits and allows? You are assuming the Patriot Act allows for this, and it just may, but none of us know exactly what is in the bill so none of us are in any position to say what it allows or does not allow. Are we?

There is also many questions about the legality of the Patriot Act. Including the current President who questioned it while campaigning, but then signed the 2011 extension.

And it will be done again and again, and I am fine with that...and so are many others.

This may be one of the more honest responses I have seen. At least you openly admit that you could not care less about your rights and you will happily welcome your own enslavement.

The fact is that the actions they took resulted in the capture of the suspect...you can continue to complain about it, but their actions were sucessful.

Please explain to me how the door to door searches resulted in the capture of the suspect?

Please show me how the street by street search resulted in the capture of the suspect?

If anything you claim is remotely accurate, then why did the Police not find him while the "stay in shelter" order was in place and they were conducting live searches?

You seem to miss the whole point of the FACT that the person who found the suspect was a homeowner, who stepped outside his home after Police lifted the lock down order. When it comes to the actual capture of the suspect, the Police were nothing more than trash collectors who came to pick up the garbage when they were called.

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

If we had the same gun laws as England, I would be perfectly fine with that response here in the United States.

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

This type of militarisation can never be justified in my opinion. As I pointed out earlier, these trends towards a militarised police force do not get reversed. It just gets worse, more firepower, more intimidation, more military hardware on your streets.

Maybe if the police tones down its overtly aggressive nature, some Americans wouldn't feel the need for such means of protection in the first place.

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Support, not uphold...not enforce...not obey...support.

Words mean things.

Now you simply making things up. Please prove your claims by linking the Boston PD Oath and show me where it says the word "Support"

The truth is, you can not find the actual Boston PD Oath of Honor. However, you CAN find the recommended Oath of Honor from the International Association of Chiefs of Police, which I went ahead and found for you. Which does not use the word "support", it uses the word "uphold".

So yes, words do mean things. Perhaps you should find out the words before assuming, like you have done in many responses on this thread. I got news for you LogicGrind. Assumptions are not logical.

A public affirmation of adhering to an Oath of Honor is a powerful vehicle demonstrating ethical standards. To be successful at enhancing integrity within an organization, leaders must ensure the oath is recited frequently and displayed throughout the organization as well as ensuring ethical mentoring and role modeling are consistent, frequent and visible. The following Law Enforcement Oath of Honor is recommended as by the International Association of Chiefs of Police as symbolic statement of commitment to ethical behavior:

On my honor,
I will never betray my badge,
my integrity,
my character,
or the public trust.
I will always have
the courage to hold myself
and others accountable for our actions.
I will always uphold the constitution,
my community and the agency I serve.

Source

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Originally posted by lynxpilot

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by woodwardjnr

 

But since we have cowboys that love their guns...our police have to be better armed than what they confront.

That's the opposite of the purpose of the Second Amendment. Defense is both a right and responsibility of individuals. Well-armed individuals means no need to have ridiculous gestapo-like domestic forces.

Except our well armed individuals are idiots.

I'm sorry, but I have a low opinion of the American public...in general...they are stupid and stupid people need to be governed.

Well, at least you have the honesty to reveal your agenda. Not so sure, however, how to take you calling me stupid. Reminds me of Forest Gump saying

reply to post by MrWendal

Please explain to me how the door to door searches resulted in the capture of the suspect?

Please show me how the street by street search resulted in the capture of the suspect?

If anything you claim is remotely accurate, then why did the Police not find him while the "stay in shelter" order was in place and they were conducting live searches?

You seem to miss the whole point of the FACT that the person who found the suspect was a homeowner, who stepped outside his home after Police lifted the lock down order. When it comes to the actual capture of the suspect, the Police were nothing more than trash collectors who came to pick up the garbage when they were called.

The response contained the suspect in the area, he was forced to stay hidden and not attempt to move out of the area.

It is pure speculation on your part that he would have been captured without the lockdown and house to house searches. You simply don't know what the outcome would have been.

What we do know is that they actions they took resulted in his capture. You can speculate all you want, but the fact is that they captured him because he wasn't able to escape the area. Who found him isn't relevant.

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Maybe if the police tones down its overtly aggressive nature, some Americans wouldn't feel the need for such means of protection in the first place.

But we want this type of agressiveness in other areas.
Gangs
Drugs

Do you really want milk toast cops in the war on drugs?

reply to post by woodwardjnr

Maybe if the police tones down its overtly aggressive nature, some Americans wouldn't feel the need for such means of protection in the first place.

Chicken and the Egg.

The North Hollywood Shootout changed things.

reply to post by MrWendal


My apologies, what I found was the Boston EMS oath.

You are correct, I can't find the exact Boston police oath.

Regardless, if I swear an oath to uphold the Constitution...that does not mean that the Constitution automatically applies to me. You must read the Constitution to understand it, words mean things, and the Constitution is written to define how the Federal Government operates.

reply to post by lynxpilot

Well, at least you have the honesty to reveal your agenda. Not so sure, however, how to take you calling me stupid. Reminds me of Forest Gump saying

I have no agenda, I have opinions. To have an agenda, I would have to have the power and the ability to put my opinion into policy and I do not have that.

I should have said that a segment of our well armed individuals are idiots, not all of them.

reply to post by LogicGrind

I should have said that a segment of our well armed individuals are idiots, not all of them.

You could also accurately say that a segment of our unarmed individuals are idiots too.
You don't have to own a firearm to be an idiot... or be dangerous.

After all, how many people were shot at the finish line of the Boston Marathon this year?
And...
Bombs are already illegal.