(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

I'm most disappointed that they locked Boston and other communities down like they did. Score a victory for terrorists on that one. Their actions can completely alter American life, not just during, but after an attack.
Glad they caught him alive, but I think they would have caught him without basically putting an entire town under house arrest. Who knows, this might have ended this morning if the homeowner had left his home earlier.

(04-19-2013 09:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

But they didn't require any additional authorization to get that hardware, they don't have anything special like tanks or rocket launchers or artillery. They just have more expensive stuff, coming from grants. That's not what the patriot act was. The patriot act is stuff like "enemy combatants" and national security letters and wiretapping without fisa warrants and getting library records and stuff like that.

(04-19-2013 09:41 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

I'm most disappointed that they locked Boston and other communities down like they did. Score a victory for terrorists on that one. Their actions can completely alter American life, not just during, but after an attack.
Glad they caught him alive, but I think they would have caught him without basically putting an entire town under house arrest. Who knows, this might have ended this morning if the homeowner had left his home earlier.

That was just an overreaction by everyone. If the citizens of Boston had left their homes, there's nothing the cops could have done about it. Everyone staying home was completely voluntary.

(04-19-2013 10:19 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

But they didn't require any additional authorization to get that hardware, they don't have anything special like tanks or rocket launchers or artillery. They just have more expensive stuff, coming from grants. That's not what the patriot act was. The patriot act is stuff like "enemy combatants" and national security letters and wiretapping without fisa warrants and getting library records and stuff like that.

(04-19-2013 09:41 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

I'm most disappointed that they locked Boston and other communities down like they did. Score a victory for terrorists on that one. Their actions can completely alter American life, not just during, but after an attack.
Glad they caught him alive, but I think they would have caught him without basically putting an entire town under house arrest. Who knows, this might have ended this morning if the homeowner had left his home earlier.

That was just an overreaction by everyone. If the citizens of Boston had left their homes, there's nothing the cops could have done about it. Everyone staying home was completely voluntary.

True, but I don't think the authorities had the right to ask that. Today they asked, what happens next time if they 'order' it? Will anybody question such an order or will they blindly obey?

(04-19-2013 09:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

I am as conservative as it gets and tend to be one of the first to complain when the government oversteps it's bounds.

I have worked in the public safety field for almost 25 years both public and private and nothing out of the footage that was shown of Boston today couldn't have been seen in the footage of the Rodney King Riots in 1992, except maybe the multi-cam clothing. as it hadn't been designed yet.

(04-19-2013 09:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

Exactly what I thought, they claim he was located by a helicopter with infrared camera, but really the homeowner called them about a guy bleeding in his boat. So that now they can use it to justify even more elaborate costly police equipment.

(04-20-2013 12:01 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:00 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  Actually the patriot act had little to do with the militarization of the police, that was just an opening up of budgets. They haven't gotten any more "powers" they've just now been able to buy more expensive toys.

So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

Exactly what I thought, they claim he was located by a helicopter with infrared camera, but really the homeowner called them about a guy bleeding in his boat. So that now they can use it to justify even more elaborate costly police equipment.

Thing is, that wasn't anything that was specifically allowed by the Patriot Act the OP was protesting about.

FLIR has been in use by law enforcement for at least 25 years. I know of a SLED raid on a major moonshine operation they found as a result of a search for a missing child with their FLIR equipped helicopter from the early 1990's. Hell, the state agency covering the SC State House has had FLIR technology mounted on the top of their cars since at least the mid 1990's. They helped the incompetent Columbia PD catch someone who robbed a friend of mine in a Vista parking lot in '98 with it. Pretty sure 1998 was before the Patriot Act.

(04-19-2013 04:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I think it shows mutual cooperation among agencies.

Evidently I am the only one that has noticed the military vehicles that the police departments now have. I thought someone said armored personnel carriers ever would never roam the streets in America.

I hope they kill this little SOB and I applaud the efforts of the all involved..but..I am saddened to see this happen in America. It makes me feel like Bin Laden won.

Well, when the crazies have no limits on their weapons, the police need to upgrade to counteract it.

(04-19-2013 10:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 10:19 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:38 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

Are you sure about that? Looks to me like it allowed for plenty of hardware to be bought by local police departments and other agencies. I stand corrected if not. In any regard...the 911 hysteria(including the PAct) has brought us to this point. This is the world we now have. Get used to it because it will never go away. Once governmental agencies get new powers and tools they always expand them. Look for much more of the same to be the normal business of law enforcers.

But they didn't require any additional authorization to get that hardware, they don't have anything special like tanks or rocket launchers or artillery. They just have more expensive stuff, coming from grants. That's not what the patriot act was. The patriot act is stuff like "enemy combatants" and national security letters and wiretapping without fisa warrants and getting library records and stuff like that.

(04-19-2013 09:41 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:20 PM)mixduptransistor Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 09:05 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  So in your world the Patriot act didn't give law enforcement any more power or authority? Not saying that the examples from boston are indicative of increased budgets or results of the patriot act, but just asking the question in general.

Oh, to the contrary. I am a huge opponent of the patriot act and feel it's a gross overreach of power at all levels. I'm just saying the patriot act didn't have anything to do with the effective military occupation of metro boston by the boston police.

I'm most disappointed that they locked Boston and other communities down like they did. Score a victory for terrorists on that one. Their actions can completely alter American life, not just during, but after an attack.
Glad they caught him alive, but I think they would have caught him without basically putting an entire town under house arrest. Who knows, this might have ended this morning if the homeowner had left his home earlier.

That was just an overreaction by everyone. If the citizens of Boston had left their homes, there's nothing the cops could have done about it. Everyone staying home was completely voluntary.

True, but I don't think the authorities had the right to ask that. Today they asked, what happens next time if they 'order' it? Will anybody question such an order or will they blindly obey?

It was preparation for Obama's marshall law plan.

Stock pile all the armaments they can to keep an unjust government in power forever is their philosophy.

(04-19-2013 08:16 PM)hburg Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I think it shows mutual cooperation among agencies.

Indeed it does and law enforcement have to be able to match the firepower of some individuals.

Considering some street gangs in Compton have RPGs I don't mind City SWAT units having MRAPs which are Iraq War surplus anyway.

(04-20-2013 02:28 AM)WMD Owl Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 08:16 PM)hburg Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I think it shows mutual cooperation among agencies.

Indeed it does and law enforcement have to be able to match the firepower of some individuals.

Considering some street gangs in Compton have RPGs I don't mind City SWAT units having MRAPs which are Iraq War surplus anyway.

To the point of the OP, never saw a MRAP in footage from Boston. Not sure that any MRAPS are available for civilian use at this point.

What I did see in footage was conventional armored vehicles, and Mass National Guard vehicles.

Police should have enough weapons to handle most things by now with all the
money that has been pouring to them.

(04-20-2013 07:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Police should have enough weapons to handle most things by now with all the
money that has been pouring to them.

If you did not see just how militarized our police forces have become during this operation you were not paying attention. As stated above..this probably has been going on quite a while.

(04-19-2013 10:30 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  True, but I don't think the authorities had the right to ask that. Today they asked, what happens next time if they 'order' it? Will anybody question such an order or will they blindly obey?

The first amendment applies to government officials just as much as it applies to you and me. They can ask whatever they want. And if the public does what they ask, that's up to them. That's why they call it a free country. I think it's dumb, and people are dumb for following it, but I don't have a legal problem with it until they start throwing people in jail for disobeying, and I see no reason why they would be close to doing that.

(04-20-2013 07:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Police should have enough weapons to handle most things by now with all the
money that has been pouring to them.

Have you not read about the nutjobs that think Obama is coming vor their guns have gone out and cleaned of the shelves of gun stores. The police need MORE firepower to keep ahead of the crazies.

(04-20-2013 10:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Police should have enough weapons to handle most things by now with all the
money that has been pouring to them.

Have you not read about the nutjobs that think Obama is coming vor their guns have gone out and cleaned of the shelves of gun stores. The police need MORE firepower to keep ahead of the crazies.

Not keeping up on this subject either I see. Quick ketchup for you: The store shelves are empty because government is buying it all up.

(04-20-2013 10:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Police should have enough weapons to handle most things by now with all the
money that has been pouring to them.

Have you not read about the nutjobs that think Obama is coming vor their guns have gone out and cleaned of the shelves of gun stores. The police need MORE firepower to keep ahead of the crazies.

What makes the police different from a regular person? A person with a gun is a person with a gun.

(04-20-2013 10:01 AM)RobertN Wrote:  

(04-20-2013 07:38 AM)GoApps70 Wrote:  Police should have enough weapons to handle most things by now with all the
money that has been pouring to them.

Have you not read about the nutjobs that think Obama is coming vor their guns have gone out and cleaned of the shelves of gun stores. The police need MORE firepower to keep ahead of the crazies.

I have seen the reports on an uptick of legal guns sales. Where is the link to the "nutjobs and crazies" that are being allowed to purchase?

That'd be a hell of a story considering recent events.

(04-19-2013 04:44 PM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(04-19-2013 04:29 PM)smn1256 Wrote:  I think it shows mutual cooperation among agencies.

Evidently I am the only one that has noticed the military vehicles that the police departments now have. I thought someone said armored personnel carriers ever would never roam the streets in America.

I hope they kill this little SOB and I applaud the efforts of the all involved..but..I am saddened to see this happen in America. It makes me feel like Bin Laden won.

I was much sadder to see IEDs make it to america. but, yeah, I get your point. we're going to look and feel a lot like israel in 5 years.