you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Tom_Bombadil 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Agreed. A total hoax. The suspect has been gagged, and is unable to legally defend himself. Why would he be gagged if there was nothing to cover up? Why would a 19 yr old kid be locked away in a super max cell?

DZHOKHAR TSARNAEV STILL GAGGED AS DEATH PENALTY APPEAL GRINDS ON.

The real story is the police-state takeover of Boston of false pretenses, when 9000 swat armored police locked the city down for 5 days, while sweeping the city door-to-door.

 

During the Boston Lockdown, What Would Have Happened if Someone Refused to Let Police Enter a Home?

 

The units going door-to-door weren’t the type you say no to. They didn’t have neighborhood cops tap-tap-tapping on screen doors: Search teams were composed largely of SWAT units in full tactical gear.

 .

Objections would be swiftly met with assurances of scope. I ran into this on occasion. When I was a rookie, a situation arose in which we needed to clear a residence for some reason, and the shifty dude at the front door started balking at letting us come in. It was gray as far as emergency warrant exceptions went, so my street-wise backup officer said something along the lines of, “Listen, pal, all we want to do is make sure this guy’s not in there. We don’t have time to f— around with your misdemeanor weed and paraphernalia tonight, so if you don’t have our guy or a dead body in there, we’re pretty much gonna bid you a nice evening and be on our way.” The guy considered for a beat, then cleared the way. We swept the residence, hat-tipped him on our way out, and went on to the next door. I’m positive objections would have been met with something similar, though perhaps with less patience.

 

Remember, residences were entered to sweep, not to search. There is a significant legal difference. As an officer, if I had suspicion that someone was hiding in a residence that I had gained lawful entry into, I could conduct a sweep to ensure I wouldn’t be ambushed by a hidden subject. However, the scope of this sweep was limited to looking for a person, and limited to areas in which a person could reasonably be expected to hide. Thus, I could look in closets and under beds, but not in nightstand drawers or medicine cabinets. What canvassing units were doing during the lockdown was a sweep, not a search; how this distinction relates to Fourth Amendment issues is a bridge too far as far as my expertise goes. I’ll defer to more competent legal minds there. However, I will note that, despite varying legal opinions here, it’s likely ensuring a terrorist wasn’t passed over and allowed to get behind perimeter lines would be considered “reasonable” by many interpreters of law (definitely not all, though, hence the controversy). This would be less a matter of “throwing the law aside” and more one of operating based on exceptions which have withstood judicial and other scrutinies over time.

 .

Please consider how the police would respond if small groups were returning fire on the police in legal self defense in the immediate vicinity. Boston would have started to look like Fallujah.