There was little reason to believe that the perpetrators were locals. They usually are not.
-
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
the consequences of their actions are why they are doing them in the first place
thats terrorism
to perform an act of violence on civilan targets in order to spread terror and its consequenses
see the attacks on Mumbai, India, 2008
though I believe the Boston attack was not well planned and irrational and more similar to the Toulose and Montauban attacks than the Mumbai one
captainnapalm
Member
Apologies for not having all the facts straight amid the mountainous heap of misinformation. I missed that story being changed.
This was obviously not the kind of consequence I was alluding to
CitizenCope
Member
Government/USA guilty until proven innocent.
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
So a few bewildering tweets by Dzokhar posted by The New Yorker in an article about the brothers:
Doesn't really sound like the crazy kind of fuck it would take to do what he did.
Doesn't really sound like the crazy kind of fuck it would take to do what he did.
Having read through every one of his Tweets, there's plenty there to indicate that he's a closet-crazy. But I agree that the majority of them indicate a normal, albeit mischievous, teen.
I think what's more damning are things said by some of his friends and relatives regarding him.
oh really`?
Salvor.Hardin
Banned
The strangest part is that the guy drinks as evidenced by his beer pong tweet, which is forbidden for Muslims.
Guess he was just a crazy dude who was bad at his faith and reflected his problems on a culture he felt uncomfortable in? /armchairanalysis
Yeah. I guess I just find it hard to believe some dude talking about acquiring women and cash to go ahead and become a terrorist. But these brothers are clearly not your average terrorist.
Failing out of school
Nearby relatives hate his guts
Likes to smoke meth
Older brother increasingly becoming radicalized
U.S. stood idle as Russia waged vicious war against Chechen independence
Seems to be easily persuaded
Privileged youth not well adjusted for adult life
List is likely incomplete/inaccurate in places, but I can see how this background could lead someone down such a path.
Nearby relatives hate his guts
Likes to smoke meth
Older brother increasingly becoming radicalized
U.S. stood idle as Russia waged vicious war against Chechen independence
Seems to be easily persuaded
Privileged youth not well adjusted for adult life
List is likely incomplete/inaccurate in places, but I can see how this background could lead someone down such a path.
Fahrenheit
Banned
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2be_1366536241
Welp looks like my biggest fear was true, people illegally pulled from home at gun point then have there house searched illegally. Best part? People are applauding these actions.
Welp looks like my biggest fear was true, people illegally pulled from home at gun point then have there house searched illegally. Best part? People are applauding these actions.
That's not illegal. Perhaps you wish it was, but it's not
CitizenCope
Member
Start a thread dude, start a thread. Be a hero!
Fahrenheit
Banned
Oh i'm sure it is legal but i'm also sure it's not constitutional
I am not sure what I am looking at here? they use normal procedure they are used to when entering the house. as the fist guy comes out they even instruct him to keep his hands up ( so he does not get accidentally shot because everyone is so tense), the search a building do some light check and everyone is back on their merry way.
I am just not seeing the need for the outrage..
No, being legal also means being constitutional, which it is according to scotus
Fahrenheit
Banned
No need for an outrage? Door to door searches with guns drawn? Forcing people out with there hands up? Then entering there house? Keep in mind this is door to door we are talking about. You don't think it's am outrage?
There was a very real possibility the suspect was holding people at gunpoint in their house. I think this is a reasonable strategy as long as it's legal. And it probably looked worse from across the street than it really was. The initial screaming to ensure compliance probably quickly gave way to calm questioning.
NO I don't, they are not there for the people living their, but are not sure who might be there. For all they know the suspect was holding the people there at gunpoint./bombvest.
in context, a highly dangerous man with guns and explosives is in their neighbourhood. So no not am outrage (though it was in the morning)
Fahrenheit
Banned
Welp can't really argue with you guys. If you watch door to door searches at gun point and think its ok I better get used to the idea of showing my papers to the police just like if we where in Nazi Germany
The search part seems justified. The gunpoint part seems justified. And they're not there to check their papers and round up all the Jews. They're there to ensure the citizens' safety without endangering their own.
Man you sound like you have never been in a scary situation before, I have had a prowler in back yard while I have a baseball bat in my hand looking through blinds of window and seeing if he will try to break in or not, I have had a crazy mafia guy banging on door saying he was going to kill me for playing Rock Band on drums and I avoided confrontation but called the police, even when I was little kid I have been close to kids going at each other with knives and then an adult came and put the smack down on them...police, yes, please enter my house, please help protect me instead of me having to put my life on the line. You are crazy to discount the amount of value police add to the world.
Fahrenheit
Banned
Yup i'm done arguing. It's like trying to get someone that's color blind to see red. If you think its ok then its ok to you, it is a (still) a free country.
says someone who constantly ignores the context
Fahrenheit
Banned
I'm not discounting the police anything. They just need to follow the rules like the rest of us. Go on youtube and search for "police rights violation" and you seem tons of examples and hardly ever are the cops disciplined for it
An armed gunman was hiding in a small area. They didn't just roll up to a boston suburb and start kicking people's doors in.
What if he'd taking a family in the area hostage? The only way this works is if the police go door to door and check.
edit: lol Nazi Germany. grow up.
Fahrenheit
Banned
See thats where we don't see eye to eye. There is no context for this type of behavior from law enforcement.
Until someone shows you similar events and you dismiss them as more examples of police abusing our rights.
Fahrenheit
Banned
What if fallacies are not a great way to make an argumentm neither is calling someone "kid".
I've been out of the loop for a day...are there any documented instances of people refusing police entry and police coming in anyway?
Absolutely. And, in this case, they did follow the rules. Police have every right to search a home in emergancy situations. There is no slippery slope or violation of constitutional rights here.
Not that I disagree with the door to door on principle, but was it effective?
Fahrenheit
Banned
Who is dismissing what now? Your dismissing blatant right violations. Also like to point out this kid was a US citizen right? And didn't they say he didn't get Miranda rights? Thats real scary
Always love this argument , you don't agree, therefor nazi's!
My grandparents lived through Nazi occupation ..and this is nothing like it.
You keep acting like our courts can't establish precedent for such actions.
I think it had a good chance of paying off.
Fahrenheit
Banned
I make an off hand comment about papers and Germany, your whole arrangement is the what if fallacy
On the other end, if they let him lawyer up , a lot of people would have been pissed too, I would not be surprised a lot of you who are now arguing against that move would be whining about it.
Maybe it was effective in the sense that it kept suspect 2 in the boat all day.
Fahrenheit
Banned
I bet the start of it was something a lot like this. Also my core argument has nothing to do with Nazi Germany, it was a colored remark but keep on attacting it as the rest of your argument holds no water
Maybe, that's why I'm asking. It was not a rhetorical question.
By this logic, police should have proceeded haphazardly without assessing any potential threats.
I just still do not understand how nobody thought tho check the boat.. was it outside of the search area?
Then again it just shows how easy it is for slip ups. If this was a movie or a CSI episode i'd be like"OH COMEON!!" To twist like that.
Fahrenheit
Banned
First there are not a lot of me on here with my line of thought. Second every US citizen has there rights and right now this kids is clearly being violated. If the ACLU had any balls at all they sue Boston PD.
That's a special public safety circumstance. He must be read his rights within 48hrs of being arrested. The courts have already established this.
I don't think they could have possibly searched every house in the area in the 12 hours of daylight they had. I don't know for sure, but I bet that house hadn't been looked at yet.
Fahrenheit
Banned
No, they should of went door to door and knock and ask "Sir (or Maam) we are looking for so so can we search your property?"
Then you should not bring it up.. I am really sensitive about people using Nazi/Hitler in their argument ,just to win their argument or to give it "color"
- Status