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

I gotta agree with Ron Paul, per usual.

But I don't live in Boston. I'd imagine their opinions on what was scarier are all that matters.

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

The key word being "they," when, in fact, the suspects acted like idiots and got themselves caught. Seriously, killing a cop, carjacking a freaking mercedes (when they already had a van, by the way), trying to withdraw thousands from multiple ATM machines, losing the guy you kidnapped while your filling his car with gas, getting tracked because you're a dumbass and stole a freaking brand new car. What did the police do to assist any of that?

Also, let's not forget that Dzhakhar was OUTSIDE of their search zone and was actually discovered by a citizen, whose boat the cops shot to s***, all to apprehend an unarmed and grievously wounded 19 year old kid.

Both of the suspects were caught entirely because of CIVILIANS, but I guess it's hard to argue with those "results," rofl.

Originally posted by CALGARIAN

Former Rep. Ron Paul said the law enforcement that swarmed around Boston in the days following the marathon bombings was scarier than the actual terrorist attack. “The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” he said on the Lew Rockwell website, Politico reported.

“This unprecedented move should frighten us as much or more than the attack itself.”

“He was discovered by a private citizen, who then placed a call to the police,” he said. “And he was identified not by government surveillance cameras, but by private citizens who willingly shared their photographs with the police.”

Read more: www.washingtontimes.com...

I agree, but I am Canadian and wasn't directly affected and I'm sure others in Boston area would 100% disagree with Ron's statement, but I figure this would be worth posting since he's not talking about much on here.

It was truly frightening to hear that Boston SWAT were basically going to knock, if no answer, were going to then Bullhorn and if no answer in 30 seconds they were going to force entry. What about the folks no home, or elderly couples who weren't watching TV and take 5 minutes to get downstairs. Frig sakes man.

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

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

Why do you think they took the story down???

I found it again and it appears to be the same source you had up....

Ron Paul police scarier then BB

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni

I agree, but I am Canadian and wasn't directly affected and I'm sure others in Boston area would 100% disagree with Ron's statement,

Now why wouldnt the people of Boston agree with that? They were the ones that got treated like criminals with humvs and armored vehicles on their streets and army personnel in full body armor patrolling their streets with their rifles pointed at them, told by loudspeakers to shut their windows and to stay in doors, and to have the swat teams and the army barge in to do "whatever" inside their houses, to get them outside their houses with their hands up, by force, like theres a little bomber in each one of us, tactical teams camping outside as if something goes wrong they were authorized to take the shot.

Now why shouldnt the people of boston agree?

What, you mean sort of like this? (Check out the reaction to the "little bomber" at 01:30.)



Pithy quote from a YouTube user:

Unbeleivable that it only took the threat of ONE person to persuade people to go along with martial law.

Originally posted by LogicGrind

Originally posted by freedomSlave
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

How would you of felt if you were at home with your family and having these law enforcement people taking you out of your house with your kids all at gun point ?

How do you think this is acceptable?

edit on 29/4/13 by freedomSlave because: (no reason given)

I think it is acceptable because of the motive behind it. It wasn't done to terrorize the public or to break into houses to look for a reason to arrest them. It was done for public safety.

If they hadn't responded like this and he blew up a house...you would be crying that the police didn't do their job.

No. If he blew up a house, nobody would be complaining that militarized police squads with machine guns didn't conduct door-to-door warrantless searches while forcing families from their homes at gunpoint. Sorry.

Originally posted by extraterrestrialentity

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?

Don't forget "run over his own brother".

Originally posted by FraternitasSaturni
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

Come on man...

Time for you to join Hopechest and the tinkerbell crew and start posting that its all normal, its perfectly right to do so, its in their right because its for the citizen's own safety, that the civilians should embrace this as part of their daily lives - just in case this becomes more, you know - frequent (for your own safety that is) - and that this is all... fine and dandy - nothing to see here - move along.

Oh and some of those german concentration camps btw... they were also "temporary" at first.

I was just watching "The Hobbit" such a medifor for today here, and thinking of all the people who wish to deny the evil that is growing. It seems that some people are afraid to see what is there and others have a grain of the same darkness in them so it feels ok, as the blackness grows around us.

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post 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.

FAIL!!!! Tell your handlers you need more training!

If you are so blind to think it is okay for the gestapo to point guns at innocent people and force them out of their homes at gun point, you are either an idiot, or a member of the propaganda arm of the US government........The Constitution, clearly talks about the powers granted to the Government!!!

I must add, that you still have not answered my questions as to where you are from? Telling..............telling indeed!

It's not right, but what Boston did isn't illegal... anymore. The NDAA and Patriot Act have both made it so that the constitution doesn't apply in cases related to terrorism, and terrorism is left undefined. It was done here, and it was done in the Dorner case.

Welcome to the new America.

This is spot on. Why does it seem like people are so eager to give up their basic liberties in the midst of a crime they had nothing to do with? How has it gotten to the point that the police can get away with abusing their power? How can people be arrested for videotaping the police nowadays? There are many questions of this nature. Ron Paul is one of the few honest people in the government who actually "get it," who actually understand what is going on. There have been very few people over the years with the ability to both understand what is going on, and articulate it to the masses. People like Ron Paul, Gene Sharp, George Carlin, Terrance McKenna, Richard Wolff, etc. If people weren't so busy watching the newest reality tv show, maybe they would both notice and care enough to want to do something about it.

I have transcribed the announcement of Boston's lockdown as heard across the police radios:


THIS IS MEMA STATE CONTROL WITH AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT. DUE TO THE ONGOING MANHUNT FOR A PERSON WANTED IN CONNECTION WITH MONDAY'S MARATHON BOMBING, ALL MBTA SERVICES, BUSES, AND SUBWAYS HAVE BEEN SHUT DOWN EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. PERSONS SHOULD NOT GO OR CONGREGATE AT TRANSPORTATION STATIONS. RESIDENTS IN WATERTOWN, NEWTON, WALTON, BELMONT, CAMBRIDGE, AND THE (?) AND BRIGHTON NEIGHBORHOODS OF BOSTON ARE ADVISED TO STAY INDOORS. RESIDENTS SHOULD REMAIN AND NOT ANSWER THE DOOR UNLESS IT IS A POLICE OFFICER AND ARE ADVISED TO STAY AWAY FROM WINDOWS. ALL BUSINESSES IN THESE TOWNS REMAIN CLOSED UNTIL FURTHER NOTICE. PEOPLE SHOULD NOT CONGREGATE OUTSIDE. RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES SHOULD MONITOR MEDIA FOR FURTHER INFORMATION. AGAIN THIS IS MEMA STATE CONTROL WITH AN IMPORTANT ANNOUNCEMENT. (repeat)

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Does he, or you, understand that the Boston police don't operate under the Constitution of the United States? That the Constitution applies to the federal government and not local police?

This is blatantly incorrect.
The US Constitution is the Law of the LAnd (USA)

You are incorrect in both your thinking
about US vs state law and LEO actions.

reply to post by LogicGrind

But this isn't stopping people from crying about the police doing a damn good job capturing the suspect.

Maybe that is what it looked like in your eyes... but then you are the same person that says that the US Constitution doesn't apply to citizens.

Fact is, the cops FAILED to find Dzokhar when he was approximately 300 yards away form the car that he abandoned.... the one that they had APB and BOL for posted.

He was found by a everyday citizen, after the 9,000+ thugs lifted the lockdown for the area.

Originally posted by Aazadan

Originally posted by seeker1963
reply to post 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.

FAIL!!!! Tell your handlers you need more training!

If you are so blind to think it is okay for the gestapo to point guns at innocent people and force them out of their homes at gun point, you are either an idiot, or a member of the propaganda arm of the US government........The Constitution, clearly talks about the powers granted to the Government!!!

I must add, that you still have not answered my questions as to where you are from? Telling..............telling indeed!

It's not right, but what Boston did isn't illegal... anymore. The NDAA and Patriot Act have both made it so that the constitution doesn't apply in cases related to terrorism, and terrorism is left undefined. It was done here, and it was done in the Dorner case.

Welcome to the new America.

The patriot act should be viewed as unconstitutional and should be done away with along with the NDAA.

reply to post by buster2010

The patriot act should be viewed as unconstitutional and should be done away with along with the NDAA.

I have never been happier to agree with you!
A star again!

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

Also, let's not forget that Dzhakhar was OUTSIDE of their search zone and was actually discovered by a citizen, whose boat the cops shot to s***, all to apprehend an unarmed and grievously wounded 19 year old kid.

Incorrect, he was inside the search zone.

Again, it doesn't matter that a civilian found him...he was still there because he had no where else to go.

reply to post by bigfootgurl

No. If he blew up a house, nobody would be complaining that militarized police squads with machine guns didn't conduct door-to-door warrantless searches while forcing families from their homes at gunpoint. Sorry.

Really, and how exactly do you know that?

If the police knew he was in the area but fled on foot and said "Well, he got away" and then he later killed someone else or blew something up, you don't think people would have been pissed that they didn't pursue him?

And let's remember, not many people had a problem with the respons as it was happening...only afterwards are people freaking out about it.

Originally posted by slugger9787

Originally posted by LogicGrind
reply to post by seeker1963

 

Does he, or you, understand that the Boston police don't operate under the Constitution of the United States? That the Constitution applies to the federal government and not local police?

This is blatantly incorrect.
The US Constitution is the Law of the LAnd (USA)

You are incorrect in both your thinking
about US vs state law and LEO actions.

So explain to me how a LEO can take your gun away during interaction with you even if you have a permit to carry it? They will take it from you to secure it while they are interacting with you...it's done all the time. Is this not infringing on your right to bear arms? They are literally taking your gun away...and it is 100% legal.

There is a fundamental mis-understanding of the Constitution on this forum. It is a document that defines the powers of the Federal Government, nothing more.

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by LogicGrind

 

But this isn't stopping people from crying about the police doing a damn good job capturing the suspect.

Maybe that is what it looked like in your eyes... but then you are the same person that says that the US Constitution doesn't apply to citizens.

Fact is, the cops FAILED to find Dzokhar when he was approximately 300 yards away form the car that he abandoned.... the one that they had APB and BOL for posted.

He was found by a everyday citizen, after the 9,000+ thugs lifted the lockdown for the area.

Tell me which part of the US Constitution specifically applies to citizens? Tell me which part a citizen can violate and be held accountable for?

The cops contained Dzokhar in the area, that was the whole point. It doesn't matter that a citizen found him, the police presence kept him in the area and made citizens hyper-sensative to anything out of the ordinary.

By the way, the man who found him...even though his boat was shot to hell, doesn't seem very angry about the police presence at all.

reply to post by CALGARIAN


Americans should be more frightened by the fact that the military can just basically declare marshall law and enter a city and stop random people for no reason and search through their belongings and ask for their ID. This is 1984. The attack itself only implies possibilities that have existed for centuries, meaning, anyone can randomly attack at any given time. That doesn't really imply anything special or different. But the fact that now the government is just swarming into a major city and taking over implies a whole new possibility for the future and future attacks. The potential danger of this should be apparent to everyone.

reply to post by LogicGrind

Tell me which part of the US Constitution specifically applies to citizens? Tell me which part a citizen can violate and be held accountable for?

You seem to be looking at the Constitution as a set of laws.

You do realize that it sets out RIGHTS, I hope?
That would be what the Bill of Rights is about!

It actually does apply to citizens. Read the Constitution, you will find direct references to 'CITIZENS'.
Here is one(the word person is referring to a citizen of these United States):

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Another... in this part, slavery refers to a PERSON that is kept in involuntary servitude:

Amendment 13 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction

Here is one that specifically refers to CITIZENS (I know, weird, but they mean individual people):

Amendment 26 1. The right of citizens of the United States, who are eighteen years of age or older, to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of age.

Source: US Constitution.net

You do realize that after you stand trial for a crime and found 'not guilty' in a state court, you can be brought up on charges relating to the same matter in a federal court, for violating another person's constitutional rights?