• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

FBI releases photos of Boston blast suspects

EnigmaO01 said:
Please note I was not directing annoyance at anyone in particular.
Click to expand...

Understood, but if you call an end to the current conversation you should at least continue on the one you thought should be going on. So let's do that:

It's a tough decision for police, every time, whether to release photos and enlist the public's help (with all the dangers inherent there) or continue to labor in private using resources that are trained for investigation and apprehension. The former can very definitely interfere with the later choice.
 
Ikari said:
Yeah, because we just throw bombs out everywhere, and we're bound to hit someone of importance if we hit everything. Hahah
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure we raided the compound for bin Laden. It wasn't a tactical strike.
 
clownboy said:
Understood, but if you call an end to the current conversation you should at least continue on the one you thought should be going on. So let's do that:

It's a tough decision for police, every time, whether to release photos and enlist the public's help (with all the dangers inherent there) or continue to labor in private using resources that are trained for investigation and apprehension. The former can very definitely interfere with the later choice.
Click to expand...

Perhaps but more times than not the public seems to do the best job of findiing people for law enforcement and the FBI.
 
Ikari said:
That he is, but given the limitations of humanity; he cannot be everywhere for all hours.

If that FBI van wants to sit on my street for all hours, it may. It cannot use any tech to see or hear inside my home without warrant, anything they see through open window is inadmissible less they have warrant, it should be extremely restricted from recording everything without warrant either. But if they just want to sit in that van and do nothing, then more power to them.
Click to expand...


ahhh, so where does it say that you can use a human to survey, but you absolutely CAN NOT use tech, or is this just your opinion?

I agree, the gov can not look inside you house without a warrant.
 
apdst said:
That level of surveillance would require a warrant. Without a warrant, or probable cause, it could be considered harrassment. Ohhhhhhhh! The lawsuit!
Click to expand...


ohhh, it would??? can you prove that?
 
madman said:
Neither of these two instances were the guys charged from filming.
Can you please provide link to the law in which you speak of? Something from a .gov site would be best. Not some silly blaze site.

as of now, it's not illegal to film any officer doing their job.
Click to expand...

They are using wiretapping laws on people... read the Time article.
Police And Courts Regularly Abusing Wiretapping Laws To Arrest People For Filming Cops Misbehaving In Public Places | Techdirt
Videotaping Police Is Often Cause for Arrest - ABC News
 
austrianecon said:
They are using wiretapping laws on people... read the Time article.
Police And Courts Regularly Abusing Wiretapping Laws To Arrest People For Filming Cops Misbehaving In Public Places | Techdirt
Videotaping Police Is Often Cause for Arrest - ABC News
Click to expand...

im not going to be convinced until someone shows me the law. Until then, anyone that is supposedly "arrested for video taping" is arrested for something else. Usually for being a jackass.

and dont get me wrong, i think we should be able to record them on tape. I have no prob with this
 
Last edited:
madman said:
im not going to be convinced until someone shows me the law. Until then, anyone that is supposedly "arrested for video taping" is arrested for something else. Usually for being a jackass.

and dont get me wrong, i think we should be able to record them on tape. I have no prob with this
Click to expand...

@ what point do you not get they are arrested under wiretapping laws?
 
Ikari said:
Did I say no flashlights? Or are you just trying to be absurd to push a point you have no rational defense of?

Go away.
Click to expand...

no, you claimed a different kind of technology allows for people to do things they otherwise couldn't do, and we can't allow this.

your critique of cameras works just as well for flashlights. the problem is, when framed that way, you see how nutty your explanation is, and you don't like it.
 
zstep18 said:
As opposed to what? Middle Eastern? Black? Hispanic?

No one is "relieved" that the suspects appear white.
Click to expand...

To be fair, there was a decent number of posters agreeing and defending a Salon.com writers story with the headline stating a "Hope" that the suspects would be white because they claim white privledge would make it so that it'd just be looked at as an isolated thing where as if it wasn't a white person then it would have negative impacts, in the writers mind, in terms of various laws/movements/etc.
 
madman said:
Wire tapping and video taping in public = apples and oranges.
Click to expand...

Not according to DA's who have use wire tapping laws.. as I've shown multiple times to you..
 
madman said:
Im still waiting for the law to be presented, but i wont hold my breath.
Click to expand...

Since I got kicked from another topic today.. I'll simple state.. two-party consent surveillance law.. read it and how it's being abused. Or better yet.. here is YET ANOTHER LINK... Boston PD
 
ARealConservative said:
no, you claimed a different kind of technology allows for people to do things they otherwise couldn't do, and we can't allow this.

your critique of cameras works just as well for flashlights. the problem is, when framed that way, you see how nutty your explanation is, and you don't like it.
Click to expand...

No, it's nothing more than dishonest argument on your part. Flash lights are fine, they do not help one see in another spectrum of light. But if you are talking IR floodlights and night vision goggles....then the police need warrant or cause. They shouldn't be allowed access to those to spy on people willy nilly.

See, my argument doesn't even say they can't have access to the tech at all, merely that they need warrant to use these search devices. Oh so nutty, huh? :roll
 
The rapid deployment of military personnel, in addition to local, country, state and multiple federal law enforcement agencies - and virtually declaring martial law - is concerning to me.
 
joko104 said:
The rapid deployment of military personnel, in addition to local, country, state and multiple federal law enforcement agencies - and virtually declaring martial law - is concerning to me.
Click to expand...

Better to let the known terrorist simply slip away in the normal crowd of the city?
 
joko104 said:
The rapid deployment of military personnel, in addition to local, country, state and multiple federal law enforcement agencies - and virtually declaring martial law - is concerning to me.
Click to expand...


Telling the citizens of Boston to stay inside for their own safety because there are insane bombers on the loose isn't martial law.
 
Ikari said:
No, it's nothing more than dishonest argument on your part. Flash lights are fine, they do not help one see in another spectrum of light. But if you are talking IR floodlights and night vision goggles....then the police need warrant or cause. They shouldn't be allowed access to those to spy on people willy nilly.

See, my argument doesn't even say they can't have access to the tech at all, merely that they need warrant to use these search devices. Oh so nutty, huh? :roll
Click to expand...

Cameras are fine too.

And if I own a private business, I can set up a camera and willingly give LEO access to the camera.

Your arguments are nutty. Luddite worthy even.
 
ARealConservative said:
Cameras are fine too.

And if I own a private business, I can set up a camera and willingly give LEO access to the camera.

Your arguments are nutty. Luddite worthy even.
Click to expand...

Private business owners are free to do as they like. They can volunteer evidence e but it shouldn't be forced from them without warrant either.

And pretty much all you have is "your argument is nutty" and nothing more. When you gain some amount of intellectual honesty and arguments which don't revolve around petty and pathetic insult, come back.
 
ARealConservative said:
Cameras are fine too.

And if I own a private business, I can set up a camera and willingly give LEO access to the camera.

Your arguments are nutty. Luddite worthy even.
Click to expand...

"Luddite"-worthy? That's inane. If you actually are a "libertarian" or a "real conservative," surely you know the difference between a zealous defense of personal privacy against government intrusion and being anti-technology. Indeed, IF.
 
Ikari said:
And pretty much all you have is "your argument is nutty" and nothing more. When you gain some amount of intellectual honesty and arguments which don't revolve around petty and pathetic insult, come back.
Click to expand...

I demolished your explanation of why cameras should not be allowed.

It ranks as one of the most moronic things ever written on this forum, and your name is attached to it.
 
Moderator's Warning:
Guys, it's an intersting conversation but perhaps take it to a different thread where that is the topic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom