The initial trail of evidence (blood) suggested he didn’t go that way. In the heat of the chase the perimeter was set up slightly in the wrong direction. Why he wasn’t found sooner with helicopter flir/thermal imagine beats me.
That’s part of living in the U.S. we get it from both sides. I want to stop the next shoe from dropping but I don’t want a police state. Unless we want to live in 1984 we will have to walk a fine line between being vigilant and respecting our rights.
[QUOTE=z-drive;106469]He was investigated, but in accordance with the laws after finding nothing they eventually had to give up. If people don’t like that answer then they don’t like the fact that the FBI chose to respect the constitution.[/QUOTE]
Had the FBI maintained a watch on the older brother they might have noticed very inflammatory remarks he posted on several web sites favorable to extremists.
A personal disclaimer, I have not visited these sites, and do not have any intention of so doing, the above information comes from a news source who apparently did.
It’s quite possible Tamerlan Tsarnaev was good at covering his tracks during his 6 month visit to the Russian Federation but something certainly caught the eye of the Russian government.
Tamerlan was not so discreet on the net.
I’m well aware of Ben’s warning:
[I]To give-up part of your freedom for safety you will have neither.[/I]
[QUOTE=z-drive;106469]If people don’t like that answer then they don’t like the fact that the FBI chose to respect the constitution.[/QUOTE]
When did you ever get the idea the FBI respects the Constitution? The FBI has maintain dossiers and snooped on millions of American citizens, such as celebrities, sport stars, actors, scientist, politicians and yes, us common folk. None of this would pass the smell test for the Constitution. J. Edgar Hoover was great at it. My take on it is simple, if you are playing by the rules you have nothing to worry about, yet the FBI uses it as a club, highly unconstitutional.
That’s not my point. The point is you can’t have it both ways. In this case they didn’t have enough evidence to keep snooping, and stopped, which is what you seem to want them to do (most people agree), except in this case. Not trying to make a big deal, just don’t confuse my point with something other than what I mean.
[QUOTE=z-drive;106500]That’s not my point. The point is you can’t have it both ways. In this case they didn’t have enough evidence to keep snooping, and stopped, which is what you seem to want them to do (most people agree), except in this case. Not trying to make a big deal, just don’t confuse my point with something other than what I mean.[/QUOTE]
They didn’t have enough evidence because they did not pursue it.
A read:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/21/us/boston-marathon-bombings.html?_r=0
“But the F.B.I. never followed up on Tamerlan once he returned, a senior law enforcement official acknowledged on Saturday, adding that its investigation did not turn up anything and it did not have the legal authority to keep tabs on him.”
Are you kidding me, when did the FBI become this pure? J Edgar must be laughing in his grave.
The FBI boys were probably busy keeping tabs on certain professional athletes. To pursue it meant they had to deal with the Russians and as one newsman mentioned “the United States does not have a robust relationship with Russia.” That “newsman” is a retired FBI senior official, I believe called Deputy Director.
Mistakes were made ~
Someone just sent me this video. Seems rather disturbing to me, and some serious 4th ammendant violations going on here
Can you believe this is happening in the United States of America? We have lost our country.
What would have happened if a citizen denied them access?
Reckon the Supreme Court will hear a case eventually. They will undoubtedly and unfortunately side with the guvmint though. Piece of crap situation no matter how you cut it.
how else do you do a house to house search?
maybe those guys are in your house with a gun to your family?
That situation does not give them the right to violate others constitutional rights.
What would they have done if the house had a day care center or a bed ridden elderly person?
That video gave me a disturbing flashback to other heavyhanded house to house searches.
So wtf, were the residents allowed back in the house immediately with a " thanks for your cooperation " from the police?
They would’ve had to shoot their way in to my house to begin with. That’s why you should have the right to keep and bear arms. My wife is very protective of our kid and has an aversion to being raped. There is no reason to have the friggin army doing road side checks and shaking people down this isn’t Trashcanistan. When did the local constabulary require this kind of equipment to round up the local criminals…
Exactly right Fraqrat. Would they have used deadly force to enter someone’s house the other day if they declined the illegal search? I believe they would have.
We are all so lucky those cops did not shoot an innocent by mistake or misunderstanding.
Several people were shot or killed over “misunderstandings” while the cops were on edge looking for Christopher Dorner. This was more than a simple manhunt this was martial law. I wonder if the locals would still be backslapping if innocent civilians had been shot while being rousted out of their houses. One groggy guy being a little argumentative and they start blasting the guy with automatic weapons. Bullets start going through walls and kids start dying in their beds. Not that it would happen because they are so highly trained and can use those types of weapons.