We have hard twitter evidence.
-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Boston: One dead, one captured, city re-opened
- Thread starter Joel Was Right
- Start date
- Status
We have hard twitter evidence.
Warm Machine
Member
You know that they didn't run out and buy it just for today right? The thing could be a couple years old. You would probably be interested in the tons of heavy vehicles the local airport has as well as the fire department as well of other municipal services. The cops are allows to have substantial troop vehicles and be happy that they do for when they might need them in a more serious emergency.
Liberty4all
Banned
You should always care.
GoldenEye 007
Member
No I don't think so. It was just a discussion over hypotheticals mainly.
CharminUltra
Member
Corporations aren't going to bailout themselves.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Sure run the roll next year when they have to raise taxes again to pay for it. Then get back to me on them results. The police should have APC/Tanks, thats tax money that could of went to something much more worthwhile
...really?
stufte
Member
So I'm not wrong.
empty vessel
Member
It would be totally specious for them to violate his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights on purported grounds of public safety, but they'll do it anyway. And, yes, SCOTUS per Rehnquist and over dissent has recognized a public safety exception to Miranda. I don't see any rational grounds for invoking it here, though.
Much more worthwhile? You're a damn fool.
Catchpenny
Member
That's what I want to know too. I actually agree with those who say the Fourth Amendment should apply here, even if I'd personally have no problem letting the cops in. However, I want to know what actually happened before really getting into the debate. After the week we've had, it's not worth having the debate on hypothetical terms.
outunderthestars
Banned
One of the major purposes of police APC's is to be able to provide cover to remove injured victims from active shooting situations. But hey, don't let that get in the way of your mindless rant....
NYCmetsfan
Banned
sneakypete
Member
Jahar ‏@J_tsar 7 Aug
heavy sleeper and a great liar #traitsimnotproudof
he's got a ton of tweets referring to how much he loves sleep
Fahrenheit
Banned
Like I said in my first post. I hope the reports are not true. But of course you need to jump up and scream how much you want you rights violated in the name of safety. Remember the government is your friend they would never hurt you
A fire truck and a tank...APC are very different things. And have no business on american soil
darkazcura
Member
Wow at what this thread has become. I'm gonna back out and go celebrate with my fellow Bostonians again..you know, the people actually effected by this and don't give a shit that 300 million was lost in productivity to make sure we are still safe.
Some people.
Some people.
NYCmetsfan
Banned
You say over dissent like most cases are unanimous the supreme court has acted as a majoritarian body since its inception
Yea, its not like the police have ever had to deal with people with guns and explosives.
Though I do remember a recent story....
Fahrenheit
Banned
Yeah such a president for that to spend millions of tax money on it, don't let logic get in the way of your pro government speech there.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Someone else said that you're assuming the SWAT team is there with your best interests in mind, and that may be true, but I think the more important point is this: our rights to privacy in our homes against unreasonable searches and seizures exist regardless of the intent of those who may be violating them, and should be vehemently defended regardless of their intent. Why? For the same reason that even the actually guilty should be given a fair trial and a chance to defend themselves: we protect more than we would need to if we had perfect knowledge, because we don't have perfect knowledge, and that which we are protecting (our freedom from unreasonable government intrusion into our private lives on the one hand; the life or liberty of the actually innocent accused on the other) is of great value to us.
That said, and though I largely agree with those who have expressed unease at what the police did in Boston, I'm less certain than some that what was done violated the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches. While a search will generally need a warrant supported by probable cause to be reasonable, there are certain exceptions, which some people have noted. Here's why I remain uneasy, even given those exceptions: although it's true that the police knew (or thought they knew) that the suspect was in the general area of the homes searched, they didn't have any particular reason to believe he was in any particular house. Given that people can search their own houses for the suspect (such that the police could be somewhat assured that the suspect was not in any occupied house unbeknownst to the occupants), there are two basic scenarios where the police would nevertheless need to search the house: (a) if the occupants were knowingly harboring the suspect, or (b) if the suspect had taken the occupants hostage. I think it should be clear that the police should be required to have a warrant in the case of (a), since the occupant would be suspected of a crime, and the police would be trying to confirm their suspicion by searching the home. As for (b), the police had no reason to believe that this suspect would take anyone hostage--there had been no hostage situations thus far. Thus, a search predicated on fear of (b) would seem to be unfounded, and therefore unreasonable. (Note that none of this applies if the occupants voluntarily permitted the search.)
All that said, this was a very difficult situation, and the police didn't have much precedent to look to, and so it's hard to fault them. At the very least, they didn't go on a shooting spree like the LA police did when chasing Dorner.
What bothers me most about this case is that it may become precedent for future police forces confronted with similar situations, in light of what precedent it sets for terrorist organizations. Think about 9/11--pulling off another would be expensive and difficult, given the changes in security procedures instituted following those attacks. But here, we're dealing with what seem to me to be fairly simple explosives (though I'm no expert on bombs). So, anyone wishing to do harm could take a look at what happened in Boston and treat it as a template--especially in large cities. But think of what would have happened last night if, while all the police were fervently searching one suburb for suspects, another group of terrorists--perhaps unknown to the police until that time--begins bombing another suburb, or downtown. And think of all the wild goose chases these police could send police on: trip a motion-sensor here, rob a gas station there, place backpacks all around. Boston cannot become the template for future law enforcement actions when confronted with similar circumstances, because it leaves too much room for error, and so too much room for additional attacks. I assume the Boston police department had to improvise a strategy this time, and that's why I'm willing to cut them some slack with regards to their chosen approach, but police departments around the nation need to figure out a better way to deal with situations like this, because I think the events of the last 24 hours have revealed a severe weakness.
Quote
Member
Your tax money may have been wasted, but mine was not. Knowing people like my Father are safer protecting little twerps like you is money well spent.
stufte
Member
and don't let logic get in the way of your clearly anti-government sentiment.
darkazcura
Member
It's like you don't even understand what it meant when they said 300 million dollars was lost today. It wasn't because of some tank or truck the police used. It's the amount lost for people basically not coming into work. Money lost in productivity.
Are you posting this from a padded room?
speculawyer
Member
Jeez . . . don't waste your time arguing over semantics. Argue whether it worth have such vehicles.
Gemüsepizza
Member
It is amazing how people like you both here are constantly insulting others because they make use of their rights. It is absolutely reasonable to not let the police in your house. Personally, if I had a big garden or something like that, they could search this. But certainly not my house. What do you even think, do you believe it makes sense to search my house even after I have agreed to the police to enter my house? Do you think I could be hidding them there? But it's always the same, people giving up their rights as soon as a emotional topic emerges.
CoffeeJanitor
Member
Fahrenheit
Banned
Oh lord, name calling is not a good way to verbalize an argument. And im glad your father is safe in his APC. I still say its a waste to spend that money on it.
I don't want to alarm you, but there are thousands of tanks on US soil. Right now. I'm not talking about your daft confusion of apcs as tanks either. I mean legitimate tanks.
I'm arguing semantics because that's the only thing I see worth arguing here.
Quote
Member
It's a tank, get it right.
empty vessel
Member
Why don't you read it and tell me who you agree with?
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=13717772316457971707
There is no need for a public safety exception to Miranda to protect the public. All that Miranda does is hold that without warnings, certain evidence is not admissible at trial. If there is a need to protect public safety, the police can obtain that information without Mirandizing a person and protect the public. They just can't use those unwarned statements as evidence in court against the person. What the conservatives did was allow those statements to be admitted in trials.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Are you posting this from a FEMA rights free zone?
darkazcura
Member
I feel like someone posted a bit earlier in this thread that someone said no to the searches because they checked already and the police just said okay.
This whole thing is just silly right now. Killin my buzz after celebrating a bit on the town.
stufte
Member
Yep. I'm done with this thread. It reminds me of why I'm so very glad that I'm a moderate.
Yes because tax dollars and lost revenue are more important than saving lives.
Gemüsepizza
Member
I don't know. But that's not the point. Here are people who insult others if they say they won't let the police in. Someone afair even said the police should punch them in the face and search the house despite this. I think this is quite alarming.
Man, if only some neogafers here could have given their extensive knowledge to authorities that all the man power the government was calling in was absolutely not necessary - for capturing someone who may have had high-powered explosives hiding in a neighborhood - we could have saved some money. Damn, lessons learned.
Fahrenheit
Banned
I'll just check in on the Boston thread, see what people are talking about now...
Yeah awkward timing. Whats going down is a few of us take issue with the show of force and possible violation of rights that went down. The rest of are flipping out on them for wanting there rights respected.
If police have proof of you breaking the law, ie drunk driving, SHOOTING A FUCKING RIFLE IN A NEIGHBORDHOOD AT POLICE OR THROWING HOMEMADE BOMBS NEAR A SCHOOL. Theydont have to "read" your miranda rights to you. They can say "you're under arrest, do you understand your rights?" And be done with it. I love how the internet thinks all these texhnicallities will get people off. You think a judge who lives in the area these people tormented gives two shits about "you have the right to remain silent..." Get a fucking clue
empty vessel
Member
What is there to celebrate? Bombs were deployed killing three people and injuring a bunch of others, and then the persons who are alleged to have deployed those bombs were apprehended. I don't understand what there is to celebrate about any of this and it makes me a little sad if this is what society celebrates. It's like tragedy and sensational manhunts are among our highest forms of popular entertainment.
How is it a waste of money? Would you rather have those two running around bombing innocent people?
Whatever you are implying has to be the most individualistic and selfish thing I have read in a while. Seriously.
I would like to point out that while I am not an expert on this sort of thing, I am pretty sure the police are in the best position to act as first responders in the event of an attack on a big city like Boston. We don't have a very large contingent of National Guard soldiers on call. Most of the Guard guys would typically be at home or work when an attack hit.
It's easy to sit back in your chair and complain about how the police have a military style vehicle, but it's their job to be prepared for emergencies. They can't just buy the APC when they need it and have it show up at their door.
It's easy to sit back in your chair and complain about how the police have a military style vehicle, but it's their job to be prepared for emergencies. They can't just buy the APC when they need it and have it show up at their door.
Ehhhhh... it's not just the timing that's awkward...
sneakypete
Member
Going through some more of his tweets:
I wish therealAbdul hadn't deleted his profile..
I wish therealAbdul hadn't deleted his profile..
CharminUltra
Member
But then we wouldn't have the tank
- Status