Enforcement Actions in Boston

[Day]

Jesus Christ ksandra the argument isn't about whether consented searches are ok why the fuck would anyone argue that ever

Did anyone not consent in Boston? Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

[Ksandra]

I made that statement because your argument was that the lessons learned from the unruly crazy insane LAPD shouldn't be applied to the professional, well-trained, would never open fire on an unarmed suspect Boston-area law enforcement officers.

oh hey, let's see if you can find the difference.

Unless you think they didn't know who was in the boat?

[archibaldcrane]

My point is that cops make mistakes sometimes. If they are in your house, they can make a mistake in your house. If you can deny a search, then that prevents that from happening. If you can't, mistakes are inevitable.

[Ksandra]

Jesus Christ ksandra the argument isn't about whether consented searches are ok why the fuck would anyone argue that ever

No, but archi wants to merge unauthorized searches and shooting an unarmed man as if those two things are completely the same thing.

[archibaldcrane]

your link came through with the ellipses so it's not working ><

sorry about that

here: https://www.google.com/search?q=unar...hrome&ie=UTF-8

[archibaldcrane]

Did anyone not consent in Boston? Then what the fuck are you arguing about?

You really think that every unoccupied house that was searched obtained the house owner's consent first?

[archibaldcrane]

No, but archi wants to merge unauthorized searches and shooting an unarmed man as if those two things are completely the same thing.

you are fucking awful at following an argument and know literally jack fucking shit about the law

[Day]

ad hominem

[archibaldcrane]

well earned

[Ksandra]

you are fucking awful at following an argument

Ya heaven forbid I deal with reality, rather than what you wanted to happen.

Think about this. Let's imagine that the cops only went into occupied houses from owners who gave permission. The scenario would have still happened because the kid went into a boat of an owner who GAVE permission.

You want to be upset about the kid being unarmed? then be upset about the kid being unarmed. Houses being searched without permission WOULD NOT have changed the outcome.

[archibaldcrane]

You realize that the searches the police were doing were not the reason they found the suspect right?

god please for all that is good please let me hear you recognize this is the case

[quannum]

good luck explaining anything to ksan

[Ksandra]

You realize that the searches the police were doing were not the reason they found the suspect right?

How does that make my statement incorrect again?

The owner notified them and gave permission. If they didn't do the searches, the owner would have notified them and gave permission.

You seem to not grasp my issue with your argument. I am saying you are trying to fight two separate arguments as if they are one.

I see you as having two issues

1. they searched homes without permission

2. they shot an unarmed man

You can't use 1 to justify why 2 is bad, and you can't use 2 to justify why 1 is bad.

THAT is what I am saying.

[archibaldcrane]

I see you as having two issues

1. they searched homes without permission

2. they shot an unarmed man

You can't use 1 to justify why 2 is bad, and you can't use 2 to justify why 1 is bad.

THAT is what I am saying.

2. shows that police make mistakes

it is ENTIRELY REASONABLE that you don't want people, who make mistakes with guns, in your house - ESPECIALLY if their presence in your house serves no purpose towards public safety.

[Ksandra]

2. shows that police make mistakes

That doesn't mean we should hinder them in catching someone who blew up 200 people

it is ENTIRELY REASONABLE that you don't want people, who make mistakes with guns, in your house - ESPECIALLY if their presence in your house serves no purpose towards public safety.

Except, in this case, those that were home gave permission. Those that weren't home...weren't having their public safety put into question...since they weren't home.

[archibaldcrane]

That doesn't mean we should hinder them in catching someone who blew up 200 people

if he's not in your house, preventing a warrantless search does not hinder them lol

[Ksandra]

if he's not in your house, preventing a warrantless search does not hinder them lol

Yes it does. It makes them wonder, possibly leave extra people in the area in case you were lying, and having to go and try to get a warrant to enter.

[archibaldcrane]

But none of those things would help them catch the suspect.

[Day]

seems like everyone is just getting dumber by the post at this point.

ad hominem

[dejet]

What I wonder if there are any homes that only had kids in them? Hmmm how about cops entering your house when you are not home but your kids are, how do you feel about that?

What am I saying, your OK letting them do anything. Disregard this question as I already know your answer.