Two explosions at Boston marathon finish line

[Simulist]

I'm still agnostic about what happened - certainly not seeing the abundant evidence for a Gladio operation that has been jumping out at other, possibly more perspicacious posters - but there is no way that this will not be used to further limit civil liberties. Nothing has happened yet, but let's see what happens next week. You can look at the opinions tweeted by Senator Lindsey Graham (not more extreme than some of your other lawmakers, just less diplomatic):
- "If captured, I hope Administration will at least consider holding the Boston suspect as enemy combatant for intelligence gathering purposes."
- To the Washington Post: "It sure would be nice to have a drone up there."
Congressman Pete King: "Police [...] have to realize that the threat is coming from the Muslim community and increase surveillance there.”

Also the voluminous amount of video evidence that was available to investigators has already made Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel say something about how important security cameras are, and you know this thing is going to be used as motivation in other cities to put up more of them.

I agree. Incidents like this have been used as excuses for flourishing government overreach, specifically (but certainly not limited to) increasing the already over-bloated "defense" budget, even as seniors and the most vulnerable are being forced ever-closer to the cat food sections of their local grocery stores just to find something affordable to eat.

(It always kills me when I hear the American news media describe how North Korea spends tons of money on it's military, even as people there starve. Uh... Pot, meet kettle.)

(Edited to fix a split infinitive.)

[barracuda]

I also believe they were at MIT waiting for a potential handler that was supposed to help them in some way and that person never showed up and things got desperate and off script.


All reports suggest they were acting NORMALLY as late as WEDS the kid went to class even then thursday they are at MIT with huge backpacks full of explosives and ammo and it starts there, WHY DID THEY HAVE ALL THEIR COMBAT GEAR when they hijacked that guys car, they had it ALL READY THEN AND THERE for some reason, they knew something was gonna go down that day, EITHER ANOTHER PLANNED OP or an escape with the help of someone, but they were NORMAL one day before then suddenly we find them shooting a cop and hjacking a car and EXPOLSIVES and guns materialize for their USE AT EVERY FUCKING STOP from there on out, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?!?!?! Normal for 3 days after bombing then thursday they are john fucking rambo loaded with bombs and guns and ready for war.


Does anyone see that as a little strange?

Sort of on the same page here. Tuesday and Wednesday they were waiting for something to happen. Going to a party on Wednesday night? Someone told this kid his back was covered. The photos of the brothers were released Thursday afternoon, so they panic, realize the jig is up, they are betrayed or abandoned, and they immediately load up their gear and try to make a break on their own. Around 10:30 pm, their hastily drawn plan has fallen apart and they are seen at or around MIT, leading to a confrontation. Dzhokhar is clearly following his brother's lead. When Tamerlan is killed, he goes to ground.

[elfismiles]

Naked, handcuffed guy?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6Te9mMuhag#t=13s

It's Over: Boston PD Says Suspect is in Custody
By Josh Voorhees, L.V. Anderson, and Justin Peters
Posted Friday, April 19, 2013, at 8:50 PM
...
At one point, an unknown person of interest stripped naked—presumably at the request of police to ensure he was not carrying some type of explosives—and was captured on camera by CNN walking in police custody. It is unclear what, if any, connection that man had to the unfolding manhunt. CNN reports that he has since been released, although police have not yet commented about the man on the record.

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/ ... t_for.html

[stickdog99]

I don't have any political objections to people voluntarily allowing cops into their houses when they reasonably believe it's in their interests.

I imagine your interpretation of "voluntary" is a bit broader than mine.

I doubt it. I forgot to put a qualifier in there. But the "afaik" was in the first post to indicate that as far as I know, nobody got fucked with -- ie, I wouldn't be surprised to learn otherwise. But I also wouldn't be surprised if people let them in voluntarily. They had a reason to believe it was in their interests.

And they can do that if they feel like it, in a free country. As I understand it. Might not be my choice. But that doesn't mean suddenly nobody in the whole country now has one, ever.

It's the same fucked-up it was before.

So, as far as you know, nobody got fucked with? As far as you know, everybody voluntarily let the police in, because they "reasonably believe it's in their interests" and not because they'd be scared not to.

And if they didn't believe it was in their interest--found the very idea unreasonable at its core? What would have happened to anyone who said, "You know what... No. You cannot search my house." I mean, as far as you know?

This latest massive action in the middle of a major urban center is precedent setting, notwithstanding the degree to which elements of it were not.

Please describe for me the person who would refuse such a search in the context of what was reported about #2 yesterday if the police informed the person that #2 was lurking in the neighborhood. Describe this person, in detail, not as some idealist abstraction.

Me. The dude was not in my house. I don't need the police to confirm that for me. That you feel you do and seem to be challenging anybody who does not to a fistfight is kind of scary.

[Hunter]

I also believe they were at MIT waiting for a potential handler that was supposed to help them in some way and that person never showed up and things got desperate and off script.


All reports suggest they were acting NORMALLY as late as WEDS the kid went to class even then thursday they are at MIT with huge backpacks full of explosives and ammo and it starts there, WHY DID THEY HAVE ALL THEIR COMBAT GEAR when they hijacked that guys car, they had it ALL READY THEN AND THERE for some reason, they knew something was gonna go down that day, EITHER ANOTHER PLANNED OP or an escape with the help of someone, but they were NORMAL one day before then suddenly we find them shooting a cop and hjacking a car and EXPOLSIVES and guns materialize for their USE AT EVERY FUCKING STOP from there on out, HOW DID THAT HAPPEN?!?!?! Normal for 3 days after bombing then thursday they are john fucking rambo loaded with bombs and guns and ready for war.


Does anyone see that as a little strange?

Sort of on the same page here. Tuesday and Wednesday they were waiting for something to happen. Going to a party on Wednesday night? Someone told this kid his back was covered. The photos of the brothers were released Thursday afternoon, so they panic, realize the jig is up, they are betrayed or abandoned, and they immediately load up their gear and try to make a break on their own. Around 10:30 pm, their hastily drawn plan has fallen apart and they are seen at or around MIT, leading to a confrontation. Dzhokhar is clearly following his brother's lead. When Tamerlan is killed, he goes to ground.

Well said, I agree, I do think myself the pics coming out Thursday afternoon spooked them, and then they loaded up their packs with the bombs they had and guns etc and somehow ended up at MIT which I may add would be a good place to be meeting a handler, dont they do a lot of DARPA work there LOL.


But anyway yea, they get spooked when the pics come out and go off script because they were either betrayed or abandoned by someone who had their back. Just seemed sort of strange that they would have all their bombs and everything in a carjacked vehicle, its one thing to have your own car packed and ready for something like that but they are in a stolen car throwing bombs so how did they get all that stuff, there is a pic upthread showing the young kid fleeing on foot and you can see a huge backpack on his back so I assume they had all their stuff in a bug out bag ready to go, grabbed it when news hit of their pics being on the TV etc and from there ended up at MIT where a cop there was responding to a disturbance, WHERE THEY THE DISTRUBANCE I dont know but they found the cop in his cruiser shot in the head, they jack a mercedes, obviously with bug out bags, confess to the guy who they are, let him go after cruising around for a half hour at which time THEY COULD HAVE STOPPED AT SAFE HOUSE and loaded up with more bombs or something I guess, they it all goes full warfare from there.

Like you said though they were awfully casual the days leading up to this as if someone told them they were covered, I dont see how they could be so stupid as to think they would just be able to go on living in Boston and never get caught and that is precisely how they seemed to act until the pics were plastered all over. I do think they have a handler somewhere, whether that is just some terrorist cell leader or someone more 'connected' we will probably never know but the fact that the FBI had contact with him and the evidence that we have of FBI informants actually HELPING criminals commit crimes and even encouraging them to (I SEE YOU HAL TURNER), tells me that it is not a huge tin foil delusion to think that maybe they were mentored, handled, trained and led to commit these bombings, why and for what ultimate purpose is the big question I cant answer, but we can speculate based on evidence we have of other cases where FBI INFORMANTS WERE DIRECTLY INVOLVED IN ENCOURAGING AND HELPING TARGETED PERPS do very bad shit and break laws.

Does anyone really want to dispute the fact that the FBI/CIA has actually used informants to ENCOURAGE and HELP fringe groups and individuals commit crimes and have a direct hand in doing such. Again that is not up for debate, it is a fact, the question is WHY DO THEY DO IT, to simply help with prosecuting bad guys and manufacturing evidence against them to create more air tight cases? Ok sure, thats one reason, but there are others I would suggest. Other reasons more sinister than I want to believe.


Hal Turner was appealing to radical right wingers and encouraging them and riling them up and HE WORKED FOR THE FBI in doing it and the justification was there were bad guys in those groups and if they had the right encouragement they would do bad things so all we had to do was encourage them and smoke them out for purposes of taking bad guys off the streets, as twisted as that sounds. BUT is it possible such agencies could use that same logic to get someone to act and do something like this to further SOME OTHER BLACK OP AGENDA? I think there is evidence that such has happened and I believe this could be the case with the Boston Bombings, but I cant say for sure, it is just a hunch.

[Hunter]

I do agree that MOST people would voluntarily allow the police to search in that situation and that most of the situation in Boston was carried out in that fashion but there are countless reports of people who didnt immediately obey orders from police and had their doors kicked in, held at gunpoint, arrested, stripped naked and beaten, the last few days, sure the cops were on edge and I try to give the benefit of the doubt, if this were LA they would have shot SEVEN of the TWO suspects within the first few hours, so all in all I think the Boston PD and other agencies did pretty well but if you were one who wanted to stand up for your rights and not allow them in your house you probably got a good dose of reality in short order and had your door kicked in and a gun at your head.


I am a defense and civil rights attorney so this is sort of sore spot for me that I have avoided getting in to on this forum because it is not going to benefit anyone for me to go to town outlining all the unlawful things that likely took place in Boston and what the ramifications of such are now and in the future.

At the end of the day though all the authorities had to do was play the exigent circumstances card to get away with just about anything they wanted to yesterday in Boston so there is really no legal fight to be fought in any of it.

[Hunter]

Also wanted to add little bro was just following big bros leads, I think the big bro was the one potentially with the radical jihad philosophy that may or may not have been encouraged by a handler or whomever with an agenda, little bro just wanted to do what his big brother who he looked up to, wanted him to do and likely had no philisophical, ideological or political dog in the fight either way.


Would anyone like to take the time to outline ALL THE REASONS the govt, some agency within etc may stand to benefit from what we saw happen, the bombings and the response to them? I would would be interested to hear why others think the govt does these things and how they benefit, I have my own ideas of course and have stated them in various posts but would like to see what others think.


In sum I think we are heading in to some economically unchartered waters, worldwide, and we are seeing govts create situations and events that allow them to get away with creating a police state type environment through legislation and desensitization, that will be needed and used in the future when things start to get ugly and the real changes in the way we live life come.


One thing that this proved is that we no longer just have simple police forces and depts in the US, we now have paramilitary armies policing our streets. There is no difference in looks, capability and resources that they have at their disposal between the domestic police and the US military, none. They dont need to bring military troops and tanks on to the streets like Alex Jones screams about, the cops have been turned in to those troops and they also have tanks etc and they are already on the streets and can be deployed at any time as evidenced in Boston.

[Hunter]

I don't have any political objections to people voluntarily allowing cops into their houses when they reasonably believe it's in their interests.

I imagine your interpretation of "voluntary" is a bit broader than mine.

I doubt it. I forgot to put a qualifier in there. But the "afaik" was in the first post to indicate that as far as I know, nobody got fucked with -- ie, I wouldn't be surprised to learn otherwise. But I also wouldn't be surprised if people let them in voluntarily. They had a reason to believe it was in their interests.

And they can do that if they feel like it, in a free country. As I understand it. Might not be my choice. But that doesn't mean suddenly nobody in the whole country now has one, ever.

It's the same fucked-up it was before.

So, as far as you know, nobody got fucked with? As far as you know, everybody voluntarily let the police in, because they "reasonably believe it's in their interests" and not because they'd be scared not to.

And if they didn't believe it was in their interest--found the very idea unreasonable at its core? What would have happened to anyone who said, "You know what... No. You cannot search my house." I mean, as far as you know?

This latest massive action in the middle of a major urban center is precedent setting, notwithstanding the degree to which elements of it were not.

Please describe for me the person who would refuse such a search in the context of what was reported about #2 yesterday if the police informed the person that #2 was lurking in the neighborhood. Describe this person, in detail, not as some idealist abstraction.

Me. The dude was not in my house. I don't need the police to confirm that for me. That you feel you do and seem to be challenging anybody who does not to a fistfight is kind of scary.

Yea that is kinda how I feel too.

[compared2what?]

I do agree that MOST people would voluntarily allow the police to search in that situation and that most of the situation in Boston was carried out in that fashion but there are countless reports of people who didnt immediately obey orders from police and had their doors kicked in, held at gunpoint, arrested, stripped naked and beaten, the last few days, sure the cops were on edge and I try to give the benefit of the doubt, if this were LA they would have shot SEVEN of the TWO suspects within the first few hours, so all in all I think the Boston PD and other agencies did pretty well but if you were one who wanted to stand up for your rights and not allow them in your house you probably got a good dose of reality in short order and had your door kicked in and a gun at your head.


I am a defense and civil rights attorney so this is sort of sore spot for me that I have avoided getting in to on this forum because it is not going to benefit anyone for me to go to town outlining all the unlawful things that likely took place in Boston and what the ramifications of such are now and in the future.

I wish you would. Who got stripped and beaten by cops or held at gunpoint for refusing to have their homes were searched?

At the end of the day though all the authorities had to do was play the exigent circumstances card to get away with just about anything they wanted to yesterday in Boston so there is really no legal fight to be fought in any of it.

I don't know about that. Exigent circumstances doesn't give them carte blanche to beat people. Or even to do the search, necessarily. And they don't always get away with it, even in LA. But they would everywhere if nobody bothered fighting it.

[barracuda]

I dont know but they found the cop in his cruiser shot in the head, they jack a mercedes, obviously with bug out bags, confess to the guy who they are, let him go after cruising around for a half hour

There are sure a lot of Mercedes in this story. The boys seem to favor that particular marque.

Why are they telling the carjack victim their identities? HELLO WE ARE THE BOMBERS CAN WE HAVE YOUR CAR BTW WE'RE THE BOMBERS G'BYE

This doesn't sound very promising:

7:00 a.m. ET: Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center spokesperson Kelly Lawman says she was asked by the FBI to not give any condition updates on Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. She did confirm he is still alive and currently a patient at the hospital.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2 ... ody-day-2/

Apparently he is currently unable to be questioned.

At this stage we only know of a single intelligence agency with ties to these two gentlemen, and it is our own.

[Karmamatterz]

This thread exemplifies what fear will do to people.

What a really pathetic example of dialogue, almost none of this emotional batshit crazy name calling freaking out was necessary. It might be possible to take FB seriously if he got this excited about all the other crimes where people are killed or injured. But no, this turned into a jingoistic hateful pissing match. Considering all the other times the moderators come on here and knock people off their high horse it's very interesting/odd why the heck they allowed this to go on for so long. It's tarnished the reputation of the board.

From FourthBase:
"I cannot see us in Boston letting them whisk him to a secret faraway dungeon. Yes, some here will roar with approval. Torture him, slowly, etc. But even some who wish him harm want him to face it here, in a local prison, attacked by locals, not outsiders. And the majority, maybe, do not want either Gitmo or local beatings, but a fair trial, etc. It's in the constitution, anyway. He's a citizen. No way they whisk him. If they do, I'll worry then. And worry a lot."

Not sure if its possible to take your comment seriously after you waved that ridiculous jingo flag in all our faces and page after page after page told people to fuck off. You question our lack of patriotism? You act like you're the only one allowed to have feelings and rant on and on. Jesus H Christ dude, why the hell are you on this board if you're so damn offended cuz some of us aren't embracing fascism? Get a grip dude, get some sleep and quit waving that ugly flag shit in our faces, it smells of nationalistic tripe better served on Rush Limbaugh.

[Simulist]

I don't have any political objections to people voluntarily allowing cops into their houses when they reasonably believe it's in their interests.

I imagine your interpretation of "voluntary" is a bit broader than mine.

I doubt it. I forgot to put a qualifier in there. But the "afaik" was in the first post to indicate that as far as I know, nobody got fucked with -- ie, I wouldn't be surprised to learn otherwise. But I also wouldn't be surprised if people let them in voluntarily. They had a reason to believe it was in their interests.

And they can do that if they feel like it, in a free country. As I understand it. Might not be my choice. But that doesn't mean suddenly nobody in the whole country now has one, ever.

It's the same fucked-up it was before.

So, as far as you know, nobody got fucked with? As far as you know, everybody voluntarily let the police in, because they "reasonably believe it's in their interests" and not because they'd be scared not to.

And if they didn't believe it was in their interest--found the very idea unreasonable at its core? What would have happened to anyone who said, "You know what... No. You cannot search my house." I mean, as far as you know?

This latest massive action in the middle of a major urban center is precedent setting, notwithstanding the degree to which elements of it were not.

Please describe for me the person who would refuse such a search in the context of what was reported about #2 yesterday if the police informed the person that #2 was lurking in the neighborhood. Describe this person, in detail, not as some idealist abstraction.

Me. The dude was not in my house. I don't need the police to confirm that for me. That you feel you do and seem to be challenging anybody who does not to a fistfight is kind of scary.

Yea that is kinda how I feel too.

Hmm. What about duty? If there's a good chance that there is a bomb-exploding maniac in my neighborhood who has already killed three and injured hundreds — and could, conceivably, do the same to hundreds more — don't you and I have a duty to cooperate with the authorities in their efforts to stop him?

[Canadian_watcher]

well, the world is lost when civil rights and defense attorneys start arguing for unlawful search, I guess.
bah... as soon as I find that rural property that still has internet and is in my price range I'm moving, turning off the news, and happily raising my dinners.

[stickdog99]

One thing that this proved is that we no longer just have simple police forces and depts in the US, we now have paramilitary armies policing our streets. There is no difference in looks, capability and resources that they have at their disposal between the domestic police and the US military, none. They dont need to bring military troops and tanks on to the streets like Alex Jones screams about, the cops have been turned in to those troops and they also have tanks etc and they are already on the streets and can be deployed at any time as evidenced in Boston.

Exactly. What is exactly is the difference between between cops who look and perform their duties exactly like like military troops "securing" my neighborhood and actual military troops "securing" my neighborhood?

To preserve "Homeland Security", federal, state and local police forces appear to have been turned into full-fledged paramilitary units. Questioning their existence, methods or whims is not allowed. Terrorists are bad. Paramilitary units in our neighborhoods are good because they protect us from terrorists. "We will hunt them down, and God help anyone who gets in our way."

[compared2what?]

Please describe for me the person who would refuse such a search in the context of what was reported about #2 yesterday if the police informed the person that #2 was lurking in the neighborhood. Describe this person, in detail, not as some idealist abstraction.

Me. The dude was not in my house. I don't need the police to confirm that for me. That you feel you do and seem to be challenging anybody who does not to a fistfight is kind of scary.

Yea that is kinda how I feel too.

The person whose house it is isn't necessarily the only person whose life and liberty are at issue, though. I mean...

Protection of Life and Property

Protection of life and property. (People v. Ammons (1980) 103 Cal.App.3rd 20.)

A reasonable belief in the existence of an imminent threat to life or the welfare of a person within the home, probable cause to believe a person reported missing is therein, or a reasonable belief a person within is in need of aid, are all well recognized as exigent circumstances which justify an immediate, warrantless entry. (People v. Coddington (2000) 23 Cal.4th 529; Welsh v. Wisconsin (1984) 466 U.S. 740, 750 [80 L.Ed.2nd 732, 743].)

The presence of a drug lab, as evidence by the odor of ether, given the explosive nature of the chemicals used, justifies an immediate warrantless entry to neutralize the danger. (People v. Duncan (1986) 42 Ca.3rd 91; People v. Stegman (1985) 164 Cal.App.3rd 936, 943; People v. Messina (1985) 165 Cal.App.3rd 937.)

See "Plain Smell," above.

Note: The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal considers the warrantless entry of a residence in such drug lab cases as justified by the so-called "emergency doctrine," which, per the court, is something different than "exigent circumstances." (United States v. Cervantes (9th Cir. 2000) 219 F.3rd 882.)

Based upon probable cause to believe a domestic violence incident had occurred and that the female victim, known to be in a hotel room, might need the officer's assistance; a warrantless entry was upheld. (United States v. Brooks (9th Cir. 2004) 367 F.3rd 1128.)

A warrantless entry into a residence when necessary to "preserve the peace" in the execution of a restraining order, allowing the defendant's daughter to retrieve certain property, was held to be lawful. Reasonable force was also properly used when necessary to effectively preserve the peace. (Henderson v. City of Simi Valley (9th Cir. 2002) 305 F.3rd 1052.)

To check on the welfare of persons reasonably believed to need law enforcement's assistance. (Martin v. City of Oceanside (9th Cir. 2004) 360 F.3rd 1078.)

To check for a missing eight-year-old girl where there was cause to believe that a male resident in the apartment searched had had contact with her earlier in the day and was now hiding, refusing to open the door. (People v. Panah (2005) 35 Cal.4th 395, 464-466. The fact that later evidence indicated that the victim might no longer be alive did not negate the exigency justifying a second warrantless entry upon discovery of evidence implicating defendant and indicating that the victim, who might still be alive despite defendant's statements to the contrary, had been in his apartment. (Id., at pp. 467-468 )

____________

What do you think would have made the search unwarranted, if it had happened to you? Were the circumstances not exigent? Are the cops not supposed to consider whether the guy with the gun who they're looking for is around the corner aiming it at you while waiting for you to finish telling them he's not there? Or what?

_____________

ON EDIT: I'm not saying they don't do stuff like this (and worse):

Eleanor Bumpurs (August 22, 1918 - October 29, 1984) was an African-American woman who was shot on October 29, 1984 by police enforcing a city ordered eviction from her apartment in the Bronx. In requesting NYPD assistance, housing authority workers told police that Bumpurs was emotionally disturbed, had threatened to throw boiling lye, and was using a knife to resist eviction. When Bumpurs refused to open the door, police broke in. In the struggle to subdue her, one officer shot Bumpurs twice with a 12-gauge shotgun.[1][2]

I'm just saying that non-violently searching a home while pursuing an armed suspect who really might be there isn't that. If it is non-violent.