Saunders Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Nate Bell suggests it would have been better if more of them had AK-15's with a hi-capacity magazine. Imagine how that would have went down as the SWAT team pounded on the door at 3AM. I can't imagine anything bad could have possibly occured. A what? I'm lost too I think it's in this chart: Link to comment
Someone Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Sorry. AR-15. I didn't cut and paste. Can you ever forgive my typo? Of course, focusing only on the typo is one of the oldest tricks in the intellectually dishonest debate tactics handbook. Link to comment
Someone Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Nate Bell suggests it would have been better if more of them had AK-15's with a hi-capacity magazine. Imagine how that would have went down as the SWAT team pounded on the door at 3AM. I can't imagine anything bad could have possibly occured. If the FBI agents and police had AK's or who? the residents of Watertown. I can't imagine anything bad could have possibly occurred if many of them where ready with their AR-15 aimed at their front door just waiting for the suspect to try to hide in their house. Link to comment
ADS Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 That's a pretty f'd up thing to think about, if the residents of Watertown just opened fire of SWAT team members for trying to protect them and apprehend the most wanted man in the World. EDIT: he answered my question before I posted my response Link to comment
QMany Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 What was your post even in regards to? If the SWAT team had AR-15's, or whom? And who the f#*k is Nate Bell? Republican Arkansas lawmaker: Link to comment
Someone Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 That's a pretty f'd up thing to think about, if the residents of Watertown just opened fire of SWAT team members for trying to protect them and apprehend the most wanted man in the World. EDIT: he answered my question before I posted my response Really? The safety of SWAT members is a f' thing to think about? Let me get this straight. It's ok to advocate for an AR-15 as a preferred personal home protection hardware, but it's messed up to ponder what safety risk such arms pose to law enforcement during a domestic terror crisis? Isn't it both messed up and short sided to NOT think through the natural consequences of an extra 10 to 200 AR-15's in Watertown, MA? Link to comment
knapplc Posted April 23, 2013 Author Share Posted April 23, 2013 Who's this "knappic" guy? Sounds like a peach. Link to comment
QMany Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Reports that Tamerlan Tsarneav was a 9-11 Truther and believed Infowars' bullsh*t. Irony at its best. Link to comment
ADS Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 That's a pretty f'd up thing to think about, if the residents of Watertown just opened fire of SWAT team members for trying to protect them and apprehend the most wanted man in the World. EDIT: he answered my question before I posted my response Really? The safety of SWAT members is a f' thing to think about? Let me get this straight. It's ok to advocate for an AR-15 as a preferred personal home protection hardware, but it's messed up to ponder what safety risk such arms pose to law enforcement during a domestic terror crisis? Isn't it both messed up and short sided to NOT think through the natural consequences of an extra 10 to 200 AR-15's in Watertown, MA? WHERE THE f#*k DID I SAY IT'S OKAY FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE AN AR-15 AS A PREFERRED PERSONAL HOME PROTECTION HARDWARE????? Link to comment
Someone Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 That's a pretty f'd up thing to think about, if the residents of Watertown just opened fire of SWAT team members for trying to protect them and apprehend the most wanted man in the World. EDIT: he answered my question before I posted my response Really? The safety of SWAT members is a f' thing to think about? Let me get this straight. It's ok to advocate for an AR-15 as a preferred personal home protection hardware, but it's messed up to ponder what safety risk such arms pose to law enforcement during a domestic terror crisis? Isn't it both messed up and short sided to NOT think through the natural consequences of an extra 10 to 200 AR-15's in Watertown, MA? WHERE THE f#*k DID I SAY IT'S OKAY FOR EVERYONE TO HAVE AN AR-15 AS A PREFERRED PERSONAL HOME PROTECTION HARDWARE????? You didn't unless your Nate Bell. Link to comment
Someone Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Reports that Tamerlan Tsarneav was a 9-11 Truther and believed Infowars' bullsh*t. Irony at its best. Add to that the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is getting free RomneyCare Link to comment
EbylHusker Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Honestly, I find it shocking that people are ok with this, but background checks would ruin the constitution... Define extraordinary circumstances. I don't think background checks would ruin the Constitution. Anyway, I would say someone that allegedly (just to be fair) participated in bombing the crowds of the Boston Marathon, the targeted ambush of a police officer, a car jacking and kidnapping, a high speed police pursuit, a gunfight with assault weapons against police, and throwing more explosives at police qualifies as just a start. Those actions also led to another officer being critically injured and a number of others inured. Now he's in a residential area. You don't konw if he's got accomplices there, or houses with more bombs, or bombs on his person, etc. He's already demonstrated a desire to kill random people and cops with explosives, which he may very well more of, not to mention guns. They were quite certain he was within that perimeter and I'm willing to bet they could demonstrate why they felt that size of a perimeter should have had him within its bounds in court (they don't just randomly make up a size for a perimeter in these situations - "Hey, I dunno, we did 10 blocks last time. What do you say about 20 this time? Why the f#*k not? My wife just lost 20 pounds. 20 it is!") Adding all that up, I'm perfectly fine with what they did and think it meets exigent circumstances well enough. Like I said before, though, if someone thinks it doesn't, then that person had better be ready to suggest exigent circumstances be removed from law altogether. Because if that situation doesn't meet the criteria, nothing ever will. 2 Link to comment
beanman Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I see suspect #2's buddies are talking about protesting outside of his hospital because they believe he's innocent. That ought to go well with all the families of victims coming in and out of the hospital. http://i.imgur.com/QpRTBuk.png Link to comment
zoogs Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 They didn't Mirandize him because they did not need to. One even said they knew how many hours the public emergency exception was good for. I'm just curious if they simply did not then would he be given a lawyer? There would be a habeous corpus writ if he was left in jail perpetually but that could be a few weeks. I heard the 48 number somewhere before but I don't think it's that well defined. He was given a lawyer according to completely normal, by the book procedures. He was asked by a Judge, "Can you afford a lawyer?" He replied in the negative. He was then assigned a lawyer. Authorities are not going to provide you with a lawyer during questioning unless you ask for it. Why would they? You have the right to an attorney, but if you choose not to use it, that's your own business. Precisely correct. However, if they question you before advising you that you have the right to an attorney, that is not admissible in court. Unless they successfully invoke the public safety exception, which, if the questioning is too broad or too long afterwards, shouldn't be successfully invoked. (You know this, just going over it again in case anyone is confused). Link to comment
Recommended Posts