Roadblocks to catch a murderer, cooperate with being searched or not.

[Primus]

I categorically rejected your appeal to emotion and authority.

I could be wrong, and MA may be different, but exigent circumstances needs to have "almost certain bad consequences" if the cops don't go in that house right now. Going into every house, or almost every house, and justifying it by inserting exigent circumstances is down right despicable. Anyone, this now includes you, who attaches exigent circumstances to justify what those citizens endured in MA is despicable.

The absence of civil actions against those cops means nothing other than the violated citizens did not sue the cops. Ascribing any motivation without asking each one of them is ridiculous and arrogant. Knowing what I know now about those cop shops I would not sue either.

Exigent circumstances.....phht!

Those cops did nothing to protect the public, in fact they irreversibly harmed the public. There is no other perspective except to those who condone and you do via your "perspective" claim.

Saying you don't condone/agree with is rejected.....you speak with forked tongue.

Unfortunate really, by your words you seemed like a good cop.

Again... I wasn't justifying what was done. I was being very SPECIFIC when j explained the exigent circumstances. He made a broad statement that he would defend himself against anyone without a warrant. I was attempting to explain someone MAY be able to enter without one.

I said right out I DONT KNOW what they were doing at those houses that people were ordered out of. Did they have some reason to believe the guy was there? This was my question before but no one answers it. Did they go to EVERY door?

All I've seen is a few photos like the ones posted. They never explain anything.

Also, I emphatically disagree the cops didn't help. Why was that dude hiding in a boat? Because he knew there were a million cops out there hunting him down and wouldnt stop till he was found. Period. He wasn't worried about the local neighborhood watch.

Some guys use the "hunt down" tern a lot. Well he was hunted down and rightfully so.

You can reject anything you like... I'm saying the same thing I have been. I don't know enough about each case to determine if there was exigency or not. I've said that many times.

If no one sues that is VERY telling. If ENTIRE neighborhoods were ripped apart so horribly at least someone would sue. At least ONE person would feel wronged enough and seek suit. Have any?

I'll say again... its photos used to push an agenda. The left does it too with photos of dead kids. Well this side does it with photos of armed cops. Its still pushing an agenda.

So who's appealing to emotion now?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Second.... the photos posted were them ordering people out of the house.... don't need a warrant for that.

lol. The correct way to say this would be "they were ordering people out of their homes - a search warrant doesn't cover that."

I also find it a little silly that you'd make a point to say that you don't know that they followed the unlawful extraction with a search of the home - as if possibly it didn't happen. It did happen, and it isn't hard to find out. Perhaps if you aren't willing to learn even the basic details of the incident you shouldn't comment so much on it.

 

[Fuller Malarkey]

Drawing attention to and objecting to the mass violations of rights is not an agenda I believe anyone here need apologize for.


We saw our government turn a police investigation into a military invasion, all rights suspended in the name of ......a wild, frenzied manhunt. Something most of us didn't know could happen to that magnitude. This "occupation" didn't initiate following the bombing. It began when a campus cop was found dead and it was alluded that the bombers did it.

To imply "nobody objected" in the face of a never seen before use of force sounds like something out of a KKK talking points training manual introducing a yankee to "Jim Crow".

"Why, they don' mind bein' beat. They like it. We know how to deal with our Blacks. Don't be puttin' no fool notions in their heads now, ya hear? See? You don't hear 'em bitchin' 'bout getting put in thar place do ya? It's for their own good."

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Drawing attention to and objecting to the mass violations of rights is not an agenda I believe anyone here need apologize for.


We saw our government turn a police investigation into a military invasion, all rights suspended in the name of ......a wild, frenzied manhunt. Something most of us didn't know could happen to that magnitude. This "occupation" didn't initiate following the bombing. It began when a campus cop was found dead and it was alluded that the bombers did it.

To imply "nobody objected" in the face of a never seen before use of force sounds like something out of a KKK talking points training manual introducing a yankee to "Jim Crow".

"Why, they don' mind bein' beat. They like it. We know how to deal with our Blacks. Don't be puttin' no fool notions in their heads now, ya hear? See? You don't hear 'em bitchin' 'bout getting put in thar place do ya? It's for their own good."

+1 Imagine redcoats turning everybody out of their homes because of Concord/Lexington.

 

[marshaul]

Police do not defend freedom. Show me any LAPD uniform engaging hadji in Iraq or Afghanistan. Show me the deputy that pulled over Nazis in Germany.
You're a *****.

Indeed. I am renowned for my love of cops. :lol:

 

[Gunslinger]

Been gone for a while, nice to find an interesting topic. Common Law is NOT and never was statutory law. It is convention. Statutory law may be based on those conventions which make them 'blue letter' law. Our Common Law is based entirely on British Common Law which comes exclusively from the Assizes in the 12th century. Common Law was writ to statutory law very slowly and sometimes not at all. But it was accepted law nonetheless.

Exigent circumstance does NOT equal bill of attainder treatment. It can only be applied to a single, specific set of circumstances. Absent a warrant of some type, probable cause or RAS, cops have no legal standing to be on your property, pound on your door or order you to do anything. I would cooperate at a roadblock by stopping. That's it. Otherwise, recite the PC, RAS or show me a warrant. If I lived in Aurora, as I believe I posted quite a while back, I'd be in court that Monday filing the complaint. That the herd of sheep whose rights were trampled didn't merely shows their stupidity. As to Boston/Watertown, Massholes have no rights so what's to talk about? They are subjects and behave accordingly. "It's for the children" or some other such ******** brainwashes them all.

And remember: the police are your friends. When they point shotguns at children they're just kidding around. Nothing to see here...Of course, if the kid is holding a Nintendo controller, they have no choice but to execute him. WTF, honest mistake...

 

[Freedom1Man]

Police do not defend freedom. Show me any LAPD uniform engaging hadji in Iraq or Afghanistan. Show me the deputy that pulled over Nazis in Germany.
You're a *****.

Sent from my ZTE V768 using Tapatalk 2

You seem to be a bit dense. Marshul, I am sure meant that in a facetious manor.

 

[Primus]

Been gone for a while, nice to find an interesting topic. Common Law is NOT and never was statutory law. It is convention. Statutory law may be based on those conventions which make them 'blue letter' law. Our Common Law is based entirely on British Common Law which comes exclusively from the Assizes in the 12th century. Common Law was writ to statutory law very slowly and sometimes not at all. But it was accepted law nonetheless.

Exigent circumstance does NOT equal bill of attainder treatment. It can only be applied to a single, specific set of circumstances. Absent a warrant of some type, probable cause or RAS, cops have no legal standing to be on your property, pound on your door or order you to do anything. I would cooperate at a roadblock by stopping. That's it. Otherwise, recite the PC, RAS or show me a warrant. If I lived in Aurora, as I believe I posted quite a while back, I'd be in court that Monday filing the complaint. That the herd of sheep whose rights were trampled didn't merely shows their stupidity. As to Boston/Watertown, Massholes have no rights so what's to talk about? They are subjects and behave accordingly. "It's for the children" or some other such ******** brainwashes them all.

And remember: the police are your friends. When they point shotguns at children they're just kidding around. Nothing to see here...Of course, if the kid is holding a Nintendo controller, they have no choice but to execute him. WTF, honest mistake...

Massholes have no rights huh? Nice.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[marshaul]

Massholes have no rights huh? Nice.

It's hard to meaningfully say rights exist when those to whom they belong have renounced them, and behave fully as though they do not exist. At some level, a right is a self-actuating phenomenon.

And I remain singularly amazed at how far that place has fallen into dependency and complacency since the Revolution.

 

[Primus]

It's hard to meaningfully say rights exist when those to whom they belong have renounced them, and behave fully as though they do not exist. At some level, a right is a self-actuating phenomenon.

And I remain singularly amazed at how far that place has fallen into dependency and complacency since the Revolution.

I understand and that makes sense.

Except I'm not really sure what anyone has to base this on. That incident? I think it was such an extreme incident its harshly fair to judge an entire state on.

As I tell everyone else... 1) wasn't your town blown up. 2) wasn't your neighborhood the dude was in.

Its easy to sit thousands of mikes away and say "cowards they should be standing up for their rights!". meanwhile people actually in the situation are mourning for their loved ones while waiting for the next bomb to go off.

Leos from all over the state poured in support to find the POS.... hospitals and volunteers from all over poured in to help the victims.

Then you have the other guys that Monday morning quarterback things and make people into victims that they aren't.

Again.... where is the citizens outcry? There isn't as far as I know. You say its because they are cowards (no you didn't use the term but its the premise) or that they forfeited their rights.

Maybe its just they were there and understood that maybe the right to life really is more important then the right to tell the cops to kick rocks without a warrant.

Life... liberty.... pursuit of happiness..... in that order by mistake or maybe intentional?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I'm not convinced of that... If someone denounces their "rights" (such as by denying their existence in that they deny that other's rights exist), would future acknowledgement of those rights instantaneously "restore" them?

If rights are "inalienable" does that mean that they can't even be alienated by the right bearer?

 

[stealthyeliminator]

I understand and that makes sense.

Except I'm not really sure what anyone has to base this on. That incident? I think it was such an extreme incident its harshly fair to judge an entire state on.

As I tell everyone else... 1) wasn't your town blown up. 2) wasn't your neighborhood the dude was in.

Its easy to sit thousands of mikes away and say "cowards they should be standing up for their rights!". meanwhile people actually in the situation are mourning for their loved ones while waiting for the next bomb to go off.

Leos from all over the state poured in support to find the POS.... hospitals and volunteers from all over poured in to help the victims.

Then you have the other guys that Monday morning quarterback things and make people into victims that they aren't.

Again.... where is the citizens outcry? There isn't as far as I know. You say its because they are cowards (no you didn't use the term but its the premise) or that they forfeited their rights.

Maybe its just they were there and understood that maybe the right to life really is more important then the right to tell the cops to kick rocks without a warrant.

Life... liberty.... pursuit of happiness..... in that order by mistake or maybe intentional?

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

I see that you aren't beyond your twisting. Apparently you have a serious memory problem as well because many of what you are saying now you have said previously in this same thread and it has already been addressed, am I right? For example, the "lack of outcry" bit... Your ignorance of the situation doesn't make your casting of doubt any more honest.

It's also hilarious how you criticize...Fuller Malarkey was it? for extravagantly articulating his posts and then you turn around and post "Its easy to sit thousands of mikes away and say "cowards they should be standing up for their rights!". meanwhile people actually in the situation are mourning for their loved ones while waiting for the next bomb to go off." First of all, you don't know what they were thinking (not to mention that this bit pretty much just amounts to a big fat appeal to emotion). Secondly, the folks who's rights are being violated were not waiting for any bomb to go off, they were sitting in their houses minding their own business (not to mention that their fear of or in a situation doesn't void their rights - how the **** would that make sense?). Third, you say they may have thought that their right to life is more important than right to liberty and so they might have knowingly and purposefully sacrificed the later for the former but in actuality their lives precisely were threatened by the quasi-military rolling the streets in their martial law exercise!

I hate that it may seem I target you or your posts Primus but damn, look at the **** you come up with...

It's almost as if you are saying because these people didn't shoot at the cops, they must have been consenting. THAT, is... I don't even have words. Not ones that I can say here, anyway.

 

[Primus]

I see that you aren't beyond your twisting. Apparently you have a serious memory problem as well because many of what you are saying now you have said previously in this same thread and it has already been addressed, am I right? For example, the "lack of outcry" bit... Your ignorance of the situation doesn't make your casting of doubt any more honest.

Whether its been "addressed" doesn't change it in any way.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[stealthyeliminator]

Whether its been "addressed" doesn't change it in any way.

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

What? It doesn't matter if there was outcry or not anyway. Their rights were violated whether they like it or not - and that is justification for opposition and anger by any person. They did not effectually consent to the treatment that they underwent.

Read my edits also, please.

 

[marshaul]

If rights are "inalienable" does that mean that they can't even be alienated by the right bearer?

It seems to me that it's meaningless to speak of a right which is neither exercised nor contemplated.

One may see how renunciation of right may led to the permanent removal thereof. For instance, if I renounce my right to life, and kill myself, it's meaningless to speak of any further "right to life" on my part. I gave that right up, irrevocably.

It's not accurate to say that something isn't a right because government will kill you for exercising it, but it is accurate to say that something is not a right because it's physically impossible. It isn't meaningful to say that I have a right to become Superman, or to magically fly like a bird.

That being said, I would be inclined to say that the mere claim of an RKBA is sufficient to establish its existence, regardless of possible past renunciation. After all, refusal to buy a gun in the past does nothing to prevent one from buying a gun in the future.

I await the day when Massholes once again lay claim to this right. :lol:

 

[MKEgal]

I'm not familiar with what the officers did once they came out. I wasn't there.

I've seen a couple videos posted on this thread showing exactly what the paramilitary force did in Watertown.

Were they wearing body armor for fun? No.. they were wearing body armor because they just had a dude murder someone, car jack someone, throw BOMBS at them, engage in a full blown shoot out with them then run away. All after this dude set off an IED right at a little kids feet.

And yet, they forced families from their homes (a place of safety) out into the street, where for all they knew that murderer was just waiting to pick someone off... else why wear armor?
Then they pointed their guns not outward, to protect the family, but at the family, as though they were the criminals!

 

[stealthyeliminator]

marhsaul - I guess I disagree on that one :shock:

Oh well.

 

[marshaul]

I guess I disagree on that one :shock:

Oh well.

Care to elaborate which things I said were objectionable?

I'm not spouting gospel here.

 

[stealthyeliminator]

On which?

I guess this part, specifically: "but it is accurate to say that something is not a right because it's physically impossible."

People have all throughout history said that feats were impossible that are done every single day today... I see this position as a potential avenue for the suppression of rights by convincing it is or "making" it "impossible" to accomplish something.

I view being within your rights as merely only doing things which no one would be morally justified in interfering with. Unless someone would be morally justified in interfering with your morphing into Superman, it would be (or "is" I suppose) your right to do so regardless of the impossibility of it.

Future technology will surely allow us humans to do things that people today might not even imagine - I don't think that it would be accurate to say that we, in this generation, don't have the right to do those things even though we cannot because the discoverers of the capabilities are in future generations.

 

[marshaul]

I guess this part, specifically: "but it is accurate to say that something is not a right because it's physically impossible."

People have all throughout history said that feats were impossible that are done every single day today... I see this position as a potential avenue for the suppression of rights by convincing it is or "making" it "impossible" to accomplish something.

I view being within your rights as merely only doing things which no one would be morally justified in interfering with. Unless someone would be morally justified in interfering with your morphing into Superman, it would be (or "is" I suppose) your right to do so regardless of the impossibility of it.

Sure, if I could become Superman, it would be within my right to do so (assuming I did not hard anyone else or infringe on their ability to become Superman themselves).

But I didn't say that it was meaningless of speak of something as a right because someone claimed it was impossible. I said it's meaningless to speak of as being rights things which are impossible.

I'm also not suggesting this is an intrinsic part of the definition of "right". I'm certainly not suggesting we anoint Arbiters of Possibility to go around declaring whether things are possible and, thus, a right. I'm simply saying that, as a practical matter, it isn't meaningful to describe impossible things as "rights".

I certainly have a right to try to become Superman without you preventing me from doing so (i.e. you have no right to prevent me from trying to become Superman). But saying I have a right to become superman seems to degrade by association rights which are practicable in the real world.