Explosions rock Boston Marathon; several injured

[Cotton]

I'm not going to argue this further. Just keep in mind that if someone blew up a neighbors house, you would feel differently. And, if you say otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

 

[Smitty]

Terrorists have changed things. They have taken away some of our rights.

Terrorists have taken away none of our rights, they have taken away security, maybe. Terrorists don't take away rights, only oppressive governments can do that.

Things have to be changed when it comes to how to deal with them.

You should start by amending the Constitution instead of simply pushing it aside, then.

This ain't your grandaddy's country anymore. The bad guys have assured that. You want to be pissed about your rights being violated, get pissed because the terrorists are being treated as citizens like you.

While I would agree that foreigners do not have the same rights that Americans enjoy, I value the rights that we enjoy AS AMERICANS to the point where I'd rather be less safe, or extend them to foreigners in the name of being overly protective of the integrity of those rights, rather than let them erode away.

You are incapable of making a circumstantial test for when it's appropriate for police to just barge into someone's house. If you are going to create a "public safety" exemption, dude. after arguing with me on message boards for years, you should know as well as anyone that lawyers will bullshit to a judge to make almost any situation seem to fit that exemption.

The line in the sand needs to be quite firm and the more exemptions you start making to it the looser the rule gets.

Three people getting killed in Boston is not enough to make me deviate from those rights any more than 11,000 people per year getting killed by guns is enough to make me want to take away our right to bear arms.

The terrorists haven't changed anything. The amount of chaos and death they have caused is infinitesimal compared to the day-to-day matters of crime and law that would be affected and abused by the changes you are suggesting.

 

[Smitty]

I'm not going to argue this further. Just keep in mind that if someone blew up a neighbors house, you would feel differently. And, if you say otherwise, you are fooling yourself.

Actually, you don't know what the F you're talking about, so kindly stop telling me what I think.

 

[Smitty]

No one is calling for warrants.

You wouldn't need one if you didn't go acting like jack booted thugs, pounding on people's doors and making them come out of their own homes with their arms up like they are the fucking criminals.

How about a polite knock, and some common fucking courtesy?

Actually, I'm calling for warrants. I don't know why that requirement should go out the window unless the police have probable cause like in any other scenario.

 

[EZ22]

Terrorists have taken our rights away. Jesus.

 

[Cotton]

Terrorists have taken away none of our rights, they have taken away security, maybe. Terrorists don't take away rights, only oppressive governments can do that.



You should start by amending the Constitution instead of simply pushing it aside, then.



While I would agree that foreigners do not have the same rights that Americans enjoy, I value the rights that we enjoy AS AMERICANS to the point where I'd rather be less safe, or extend them to foreigners in the name of being overly protective of the integrity of those rights, rather than let them erode away.

You are incapable of making a circumstantial test for when it's appropriate for police to just barge into someone's house. If you are going to create a "public safety" exemption, dude. after arguing with me on message boards for years, you should know as well as anyone that lawyers will bullshit to a judge to make almost any situation seem to fit that exemption.

The line in the sand needs to be quite firm and the more exemptions you start making to it the looser the rule gets.

Three people getting killed in Boston is not enough to make me deviate from those rights any more than 11,000 people per year getting killed by guns is enough to make me want to take away our right to bear arms.

The terrorists haven't changed anything. The amount of chaos and death they have caused is infinitesimal compared to the day-to-day matters of crime and law that would be affected and abused by the changes you are suggesting.

After reading all of those words, I stand firm in the stance that how we define and deal with terrorism needs to be revisited.

The way we deal with them now (foreign and domestic) is not even close to a deterrent now.

 

[Smitty]

What if your neighbor in Boston got his home invaded by a terrorist, and said terrorist had a bomb on him. The police had damn good intel he was in the neighborhood. Would you be cool with the cops backing off and waiting on a judge to issue a search warrant before the cops raided? Or would you like the cops to take prudent measures to make sure your neighbors house hadn't been compromised and make sure your house remains safe?

Uh, consider the fact that all that searching that the police did.... DIDN'T EVEN LOCATE THE TERRORIST.

He was found on a tip from a concerned citizen later.

So frankly there is no evidence that the correct measure isn't simply for the police to exert vigilance in the neighborhood instead of going kicking in doors.

Did anyone get injured by these cops raiding? Did anyone get gunned down that shouldn't have?

Do people get injured by cops raiding? Does anyone ever get gunned down that shouldn't have?

All the time.

There are probably more accidental deaths caused by police a month in this country than there have been from terrorism in all the years since 9/11.

So, your questions are really disproving your own point here.

Yes, the effective thing in this instance actually WAS for the police "backing off" and yes, people do get hurt from over intrusive police on quite frequently.

 

[Cotton]

Actually, you don't know what the F you're talking about, so kindly stop telling me what I think.

Okay, Captain Constitution.

 

[Smitty]

After reading all of those words, I stand firm in the stance that how we define and deal with terrorism needs to be revisited.

The way we deal with them now (foreign and domestic) is not even close to a deterrent now.

Ok, that's fine. Do it in a way that doesn't violate our rights.

 

[Cotton]

Actually, I'm calling for warrants. I don't know why that requirement should go out the window unless the police have probable cause like in any other scenario.

You mean probable cause like they have good info that the terrorist is in the neighborhood? Sounds like probable cause to me.

 

[Cowboysrock55]

You're blaming the wrong people. 3,000 deaths at one shot is a pretty substantial amount. It could happen where you live next, but it's awfully nice to be able to sit back from the bleachers and scream injustice when it wasn't your front porch that was violated.

All I know is I would be livid if the cops just pulled me out of my home at gun point and searched my home without any probable cause. There are certain freedoms and rights we enjoy as Americans that we shouldn't be willing to give up. I've done enough criminal law work to know how quickly police officers would abuse such things.

 

[BipolarFuk]

Actually, I'm calling for warrants. I don't know why that requirement should go out the window unless the police have probable cause like in any other scenario.

Sure, get a warrant if someone says you can't come in, but I'm guessing the vast majority in this situation didn't have a problem with the police looking for this guy. I'm outraged over their gestapo tactics. Why do you have to act like that when searching someone's house looking for some POS? Why beat on a door so hard like in the video that it is seperating from the frame an inch and bouncing back everytime Herr Officer hits it? Why make honest citizens march out of their own homes with their hands up like they are criminals?

 

[EZ22]

I like Iamtdg but he's embarrassing himself here.

 

[Cotton]

Uh, consider the fact that all that searching that the police did.... DIDN'T EVEN LOCATE THE TERRORIST.

He was found on a tip from a concerned citizen later.

So frankly there is no evidence that the correct measure isn't simply for the police to exert vigilance in the neighborhood instead of going kicking in doors.



Do people get injured by cops raiding? Does anyone ever get gunned down that shouldn't have?

All the time.

There are probably more accidental deaths caused by police a month in this country than there have been from terrorism in all the years since 9/11.

So, your questions are really disproving your own point here.

The first terrorist was found by canvasing the neighborhood, so it looks like you and I are at an impasse.

And your definition of accidental death is weird. Do you think terrorists accidentally kill people?

 

[Smitty]

You mean probable cause like they have good info that the terrorist is in the neighborhood? Sounds like probable cause to me.

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about then, cause that's not probable cause to kick in everyone's door.

Try substituting the word "terrorist" with "drug dealer" and then see if it sounds like a good idea to you. If it doesn't, then you'll need to give me a better explanation for why we should throw it all out the window for someone who caused three deaths, as if there aren't other multiple-homicide criminals on our streets every day who are caught and prosecuted under the same system.

 

[Cotton]

CONSTITUTION!

Wait, they killed my neighbor? KILL THEM!

 

[Cotton]

Sounds like you don't know what you're talking about then, cause that's not probable cause to kick in everyone's door.

Try substituting the word "terrorist" with "drug dealer" and then see if it sounds like a good idea to you. If it doesn't, then you'll need to give me a better explanation for why we should throw it all out the window for someone who caused three deaths, as if there aren't other multiple-homicide criminals on our streets every day who are caught and prosecuted under the same system.

Substituting the word terrorist for drug dealer is not acceptable since the two are completely different and should be handled differently.

 

[BipolarFuk]

CONSTITUTION!

Wait, they killed my neighbor? KILL THEM!

 

[Cotton]

I like Iamtdg but he's embarrassing himself here.

So are the social injustice fools that can't put themselves in the situation of fear and subjugation of terrorism that the people of Boston endured.

I would gladly be pulled out of my home if I thought the cops were trying to find a terrorist that had been bombing my city and killing people. A minor inconvenience to catch the terrorist. It's very close to the argument about why TSA needs to screen people before they get on a plane. A minor inconvenience to accommodate my safety.

 

[Smitty]

The first terrorist was found by canvasing the neighborhood, so it looks like you and I are at an impasse.

The first terrorist was not caught from kicking people's doors in. Police responded to the murder of a MIT cop and subsequent carjacking, then encountered the vehicle out in the open.

And your definition of accidental death is weird. Do you think terrorists accidentally kill people?

No, my point is that overaggressive cops cause death amongst Americans at a higher rate than deliberate terrorism, since after 9/11 that is unquestionable (Even if you factor in 3000 deaths in 9/11 I'm not sure that police haven't caused more ACCIDENTAL deaths than that, but I'm not sure, so I won't claim that).

Which leads to the conclusion that it's more dangerous for American citizens to have cops being overaggressive about apprehending suspects than it is to have a terrorist on the loose (especially when the terrorist already committed his crime -- it's highly unlikely he's going to strike again while the cops are hot on his trail). Therefore there's no real danger in having the cops be patient.