Boston Terror Attacks

[Grumman]

As you can see there is no such rule of "Don't point your gun at people". Number 2 comes the closest but that doesn't prohibit pointing a gun at a possible threat.

Which is militarisation in a nutshell: treating Joe Q. Public as "a possible threat" that you should be willing and ready to destroy instead of as someone you're supposed to be protecting.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As you can see there is no such rule of "Don't point your gun at people". Number 2 comes the closest but that doesn't prohibit pointing a gun at a possible threat.

Which is militarisation in a nutshell: treating Joe Q. Public as "a possible threat" that you should be willing and ready to destroy instead of as someone you're supposed to be protecting.

Hilarious. Would you say a proper pistol grip/stance is also an example of militarization?

You are just moving the goal posts now. First you claim it is unacceptable because it violates what you believed to be firearm safety rules. You were wrong about that. Now that you've been corrected on this you change your argument and call it an example of militarization without explaining what makes this so significant that it should be reserved for only the military.

Utilizing proper firearm tactics in dangerous and unpredictable situations is no more militarization than equipping police with weapons and armor to combat the criminals that they are tasked with apprehending. Criminals have firearms. Criminals have access to body armor. Criminals have access to training.

[Grumman]

First you claim it is unacceptable because it violates what you believed to be firearm safety rules. You were wrong about that.

I am only wrong if you are right that a person in their own home with a camera is "a possible threat" that you are willing to destroy.

So here's my question to you: if a person in their own home holding a harmless object is not something "you are not willing to destroy", what is worthy of that protection?

[Kamakazie Sith]

I am only wrong if you are right that a person in their own home with a camera is "a possible threat" that you are willing to destroy.

So here's my question to you: if a person in their own home holding a harmless object is not something "you are not willing to destroy", what is worthy of that protection?

You are wrong because you do not understand the rules. Again, there is no rule saying you can't point a weapon at someone. What the "willing to destroy" means you are accepting responsibility whether it be civil or criminally if you have an accident. Now we're on to why rule #4 exists. Identify your target, and what is behind it. Never shoot at anything that you have not positively identified.

In the case we're talking about this was an uncleared house and I'm assuming they were told via loudspeaker to stay away from their windows. I'm assuming this was done because it was shown in a few videos posted online. Now, how do you determine that the person in the window is holding a harmless object, potentially an object that could severely injure or kill your entire team? Keep in mind these aren't assumptions about the suspect they were chasing. These are demonstrated facts about the suspect.

Your question is loaded. It is loaded because you made several assumptions that make pointing a weapon at this person unreasonable. Your assumption include that the police knew the person in the window lived there and the police knew that the object he was holding was a harmless object. I will throw you a bone and say that officers actions were unreasonable if you can prove that he knew this person was harmless and pointed a weapon at him anyway.

[Ahriman238]

The city is flooding with 'Boston Strong' T-shirts. Some have the date of the bombing and 'never forget' on them too.

Am I a horrible person because my first thought was 'I went to the Boston Marathon and all I got was this stupid shrapnel' shirts couldn't be far behind?

Anyways, I love how the bombings are so all-encompassing they can be related to any issue you want. The news for the last two days has been full of how the two bombers were on welfare, living in section 8 housing, yet the younger managed a 6-month trip back home to learn bomb-making and building a savings of $100,000 without getting cut off.

One hundred thousand bucks? I guarantee you that’s just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the welfare that’s been dished out to these Chechen chiselers over the last decade.

It’s “stunning,” said someone at the State House who’s seen the documents. It’s a “bonanza.” It’s also business as usual when it comes to taking care of foreign freeloaders, legal or illegal.

The scope of the welfare these people were grabbing is so immense that even Gov. Deval Patrick’s PC veneer is wearing thin. Last week he went so far as to drop the usual euphemism of “benefits” to admit that they were “on the dole.” Such hate speech!



.

It’s now been confirmed that the Tsarnaevs got Section 8 housing. They lived in Cambridge. Rents are expensive even in the not-so-nice parts of the People’s Republic. Let’s figure $800 a month in subsidies, over 10 years.

At that rate, Section 8 alone would come to $96,000. (If these numbers are off, Gov. Patrick, feel free to give the Herald the 500 pages you turned over to the Legislature so we can write a correction.)

Then there’s the “cash” — also known as EBT cards, and “SNAP,” formerly known as food stamps. And Mass Health.

The only documents Deval has turned over, under duress, involve state-run programs. What about the federal handouts available to these poor persecuted political refugees, who sometimes took six-month vacations in their native land where they were so oppressed?

Ever hear of “crazy checks”? That’s SSI, and it’s not just for widows and orphans anymore. SSI now includes a scam under which parents get their minor children diagnosed with some sort of usually invisible malady, making them eligible for $400 or $500 a month.

Tell me KleptoMom didn’t know about this grift.

And here’s a quote from a neighbor in The Wall Street Journal last week about Tamerlan: “His back was in really bad shape.”

Can somebody say SSDI — disability. Nationwide, we’re up to 8.9 million people on “disability,” and that’s growing by close to 100,000 a month despite the so-called recovery. Even more people go out on “back problems” than on that other epidemic malady, “sad feelings.”

After two years on SSDI, you’re eligible for ... Medicare.

This was just one foreign family, admitted legally. Now they want to give amnesty to at least 11 million illegal aliens — all of whom will be eligible for welfare immediately, according to Sen. Jeff Sessions of Alabama.

Do the math. Then go out and get another job, or maybe two. The next tidal wave of Tsarnaevs is counting on you.

[Broomstick]

If they really accumulated $100,000 in savings while on "welfare" then they were committing fraud. What I actually see, over and over, is conflating the value of the aid received with the word "savings".

As for a trip home - newflash, plane tickets can be cheap if you do a little shopping.

This is just more of the same equating poverty with crime and whining about how cushy the lifestyle is... in which case, why don't those whiners give up their jobs and live on welfare? I know why - because it sucks, and they know it, they just like kicking the underdogs.

Blaming it all on foreigners is just more failure to look at this country's own failings.

[Dalton]

Three roommates of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev have been arrested and accused with removing items from his dorm room.

[Simon_Jester]

Part of me suspects them of trying to destroy evidence of their own complicity.

Part of me wonders if maybe they're just trying to get back stuff they loaned to him- oops, another case of "too dumb to stay out of jail."

I'm half tempted to bet that some of the roommates are from column A and some from column B.

[Zaune]

And column C; "Hey, he's an internationally renowned terrorist now, I bet there's people who'll pay thousands of dollars for his shit!"

[Broomstick]

Seems like it was more "let's hide this stuff so our buddy doesn't get into trouble", except by that time their buddy was on the run and a wanted man. I'm still 50/50 on whether or not they were involved. Regardless, attempted destruction of evidence is not a good thing.

[Grumman]

As it turns out, not only was Tsarnaev not read his Miranda rights for two days, after sixteen hours of interrogation;

A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.

source

The only reason either of these actually happened was because the weapons of mass destruction charge meant he had to be brought before a judge, and said judge took it upon herself to ensure his rights were respected. So, good on Judge Bowler for actually following the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, even if the FBI and a bunch of congressmen would rather she didn't.

[Kamakazie Sith]

As it turns out, not only was Tsarnaev not read his Miranda rights for two days, after sixteen hours of interrogation;

A senior congressional aide said Tsarnaev had asked several times for a lawyer, but that request was ignored since he was being questioned under the public safety exemption to the Miranda rule.

source

The only reason either of these actually happened was because the weapons of mass destruction charge meant he had to be brought before a judge, and said judge took it upon herself to ensure his rights were respected. So, good on Judge Bowler for actually following the Sixth Amendment of the United States Constitution, even if the FBI and a bunch of congressmen would rather she didn't.

I also heard a significant amount of questioning involved questions outside the scope of the public safety exemption. If that's true then that pisses me off. Way to give more fuel to those crying about a police state.