i-baster wrote:
Allowing them to look for a fugitive is not the same as passively accepting being terrorised by the police at gunpoint while they perform illegal actions.

Gilly wrote:
ibaster and millions like him are quite happy with sacrificing liberty for security, so the sheeple vote for their own demise imho.

andyh wrote:
No they are not the same thing. Only in your frightened little world.

i-baster wrote:
You're the one who is frightened enough to let cops search your house for a terry wrist, not me pal.
I've more chance of being struck by lightening than having to worry about a terry wrist. Unless you mean terrorism as a form of governance but the cops are not going to be much help if that becomes the case.

Gilly wrote:
Nobody was at gun point. Guns were held because they were looking for a dangerous man and fingers are, clearly seen in photos, not on the triggers. Which illegal actions are you talking about exactly? Which laws are violated?

i-baster wrote:

i-baster wrote:
Unlawful arrest. Detainment without charge. Complete disregard for the 1st 4th and 5th amendments, nothing major, go back to sleep, your govt is in control.

i-baster wrote:
You've got to be joking!!! Fucking go back and watch the vid's posted in this thread. And read the articles. There were even shots fired when some of the residents ventured out of their homes after hours of being confined, because of confusion among the cops as to whether they were allowed out or not yet. I posted an interview with one of those residents. Being terrorised by them was his description - and he made a point of saying he was no conspiracy theorist or detractor of the police, so you can't use that as a get out clause for it to fit in with how you're portraying things.

Multiple shill posts now.

The police carry guns that isn't the same as being held at gun point. Who was arrested illegally?

i-baster wrote:
LOOOOLLLLOOLLLLLL!!!!!!

I didn't expect an intelligent response but I did expect Gilly to thank you for the response you gave regardless.

i-baster wrote:

In both video links these points can be shown to be true. The police definiately held people at gunpoint and in parts, definaitely were pointing them at peoples faces. The other link is one of the people this happened to and he explains it in detail.
If you haven't watched either of them, I fail to see what your point is.

i-baster wrote:
I was going to respond to your comment, but it's so transparently obvious that you still haven't bothered to look at the links - or if you have, you're just happy to completely ignore irrefutable, in-you-face evidence which conflicts with your agrument - that my pointing this out is unnecessary. It's here for all to see, and futile to attempt to reason with you. In other words, you're up to our usual standard of talking drivel.

I thanked Sket for taking the trouble to re-post a vid from earlier which proves you to be wrong. She's maybe not yet got the past the trying to reason with you stage. I'm long past it, knowing it to be a waste of effort.

I hadn't seen this before, and don't know for sure whether it's relevant or not. But it's bloody strange...

Who was Boston's naked man?
From: news.com.au
April 23, 2013 7:37PM
Boston suspect finally speaks
'Free Jahar': Suspect's cult fans
Flap over Naked Man conspiracy theories



IT'S one of the enduring mysteries of the chaos in Boston last week. Just who was the naked man law enforcement authorities paraded in front of the cameras?
After the shooting of a police officer at MIT and the high-speed chase through Watertown that followed, the Boston Police arrested and questioned a man and ordered him to strip. CNN broadcast footage of the nude man being escorted by police to a waiting wagon.
It was a riveting moment in the foggy TV coverage of the issue, where it (wrongly) seemed like there was resolution to the case.
But days later the naked man has yet to come forward, and the Watertown police department has not clarified the man’s identity – fuelling conspiracy theories about the man’s identity.
Several online conspiracy theorists claim the world is being hoodwinked by Boston law enforcement and that the naked man was one of the terrorists who caused the chaos, Tamerlan Tsarnaev.
The claims, fuelled by an interview that aired on US television where Tsarnaev’s aunt identified the naked man as “100 per cent” Tamerlan, were today rubbished by the Watertown police department.
Official accounts of the incident said Tamerlan died after a lengthy shootout with law enforcement agents. Doctors said Tsarnaev’s body was riddled with massive penetrating injuries. He immediately went into cardiac arrest upon arrival at hospital and was later pronounced dead.
A man who was caught up in the case when the Tsarnaev brothers hijacked his SUV has yet to publicly speak about the case.
Law enforcement officials told The New York Times that this man was released, uninjured, at a gas station and he then called the police.
The Naked Man mystery continues. But he has become an object of a different kind of fascination, too. Author Michael Patrick said on Twitter he was “an inspiration to all of us to get back to the gym”, adding that a similar situation could happen to you.


Read more: www.news.com.au/world-news/north-america...017169#ixzz2RJnfpxhX

I've seen some truly horrific pictures of the injuries inflicted by the bombs, which I wouldn't want to post here because they're too horrible - this was an act which I would describe as pure evil, without wishing to get into a debate again re the existence of evil.

So I trust that nobody will doubt that I find nothing about it funny.

Except this particular commissioner's slip up, which made me laugh. (Though it was a dark, sardonic laugh)

It was only a matter of time I guess.

i-baster wrote:
What - before the commissioner referred to the suspects as actors? That's an odd observation.

Yes it is an odd choice of words or a simple slip of the tongue. I can`t tell you which as I am not him. The naked man is a naked man who was arrested(possibly for being naked). If you ever watch cops or Jail you see that people often get arrested for being naked and drunk. Not sure what the deal is here but I am pretty sure that despite the lock down of Boston there were no doubt still laws being broken and people being taken in.

The conspiracy always adapts. They were set up becomes they were actors etc etc. Why would the naked man be naked if he were one of the on the run bombers? I believe the narrative put out by poor journalism was that the police made him strip to show that he was not about to blow up. The news here was constantly showing another guy laying on the ground surrounded by police but it was just somebody who had been ordered to do so for whatever reason. He was on the news for hours but the anchor did point out once they found out that the shot was not of one of the suspects.

samuel-warde.com/2013/04/alleged-bomber-...ils-of-attack-video/

Rachel Maddow explains why the suspect was not read his miranda rights.
samuel-warde.com/2013/04/rachel-maddow-e...iranda-rights-video/