• 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!

Officials: Boston suspect had no firearm when barrage of bullets hit hiding place

This story told us the media could turn a man into a woman, or an innocent man into a criminal. They could go on with the story that Dzhokhar died in hospital you still would take it. Now they change the story because a living man's "confession" is more "true" then a dead man"s. So you saw this abrupt turn out.
 
Slyfox696 said:
No, I'm not. So feel free to explain your point.
Click to expand...
My point is, any other event that involved a firearm (and this one did), the media would be all excited to point out the manufacturer, the make/model, type of ammunition, how the guns were procured, was it a gunshow buy?, etc...

The link I posted shows me they haven't swung to far away from that agenda, just a bit delayed.
 
EnigmaO01 said:
We're lucky he's alive for questioning. It must have been all the feds could do to keep the Boston police department from making Swiss cheese out of him.
Click to expand...

Really? You mean we almost couldn't trust the Boston Police with their guns?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It's not the police I was worried about killing dsokhar, but the people of Boston. They would have killed him for vengeance.
Click to expand...

And what would the police have killed him for? Looks to me like you're making up ****.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
It's not the police I was worried about killing dsokhar, but the people of Boston. They would have killed him for vengeance.
Click to expand...

Exactly what are you basing this stupid claim on?
 
WCH said:
My point is, any other event that involved a firearm (and this one did), the media would be all excited to point out the manufacturer, the make/model, type of ammunition, how the guns were procured, was it a gunshow buy?, etc...

The link I posted shows me they haven't swung to far away from that agenda, just a bit delayed.
Click to expand...
So...you're upset the media DIDN'T report the guns they used since they were far more known as bombers? You WANT them to use this incident to go off on guns? Or, and this is what I feel is most likely, did you just want to find something to complain about, even when you are getting what you want? Maybe I'm wrong and you support gun control, but my feeling is that you're getting upset because the media didn't give you something to get upset about. In other words, you're upset the media isn't doing what you don't want them to do, which makes no sense.

Am I correct?
 
Slyfox696 said:
So...you're upset the media DIDN'T report the guns they used since they were far more known as bombers? You WANT them to use this incident to go off on guns? Or, and this is what I feel is most likely, did you just want to find something to complain about, even when you are getting what you want? Maybe I'm wrong and you support gun control, but my feeling is that you're getting upset because the media didn't give you something to get upset about. In other words, you're upset the media isn't doing what you don't want them to do, which makes no sense.

Am I correct?
Click to expand...

I'm not 'upset' or 'complaining' about anything. I was only pointing out an observation.

The media [as I showed with my link] finally came around to exposing their agenda once again.

I'm totally against gun control and am a strident supporter of the 2nd amendment.

Anything else you want to know?
 
WCH said:
I'm not 'upset' or 'complaining' about anything. I was only pointing out an observation.

The media [as I showed with my link] finally came around to exposing their agenda once again.

I'm totally against gun control and am a strident supporter of the 2nd amendment.

Anything else you want to know?
Click to expand...
:lol:

So you just randomly decided to point out the "lamestream" media didn't do what you didn't want them to do? And then you post your first link which leads to a site (gunsaveslives.net) I can only imagine is pro guns which did mention the guns? Yeah, you weren't looking to be upset at all. :roll:

You were just wanting a reason to blame the "lamestream" media, and I think you were disappointed they did exactly what you would want them to do. You were actively looking to be persecuted, so you could gear up and blast the "lamestream" media, and yet when it didn't happen, you were disappointed.

Don't worry, you are not alone in this mentality, I find it quite often in Republicans/conservatives.
 
The big idiot in this whole thing was the boat owner who stupidly turned the dude over to the (corrupt) feds instead of trying to question the suspect himself. If he was bleeding and unarmed, he certainly wasn't going to put up any resistance, and we would've been much closer to the truth today.

But Mr. Boathead didn't think and decided to be another submissive bitch for his gummint, and now, we'll never actually know what happened.
 
Slyfox696 said:
:lol:

So you just randomly decided to point out the "lamestream" media didn't do what you didn't want them to do? And then you post your first link which leads to a site (gunsaveslives.net) I can only imagine is pro guns which did mention the guns? Yeah, you weren't looking to be upset at all. :roll:

You were just wanting a reason to blame the "lamestream" media, and I think you were disappointed they did exactly what you would want them to do. You were actively looking to be persecuted, so you could gear up and blast the "lamestream" media, and yet when it didn't happen, you were disappointed.

Don't worry, you are not alone in this mentality, I find it quite often in Republicans/conservatives.
Click to expand...

You are weird. Please don't respond to me any longer and I'll do the same.
 
solletica said:
The big idiot in this whole thing was the boat owner who stupidly turned the dude over to the (corrupt) feds instead of trying to question the suspect himself. If he was bleeding and unarmed, he certainly wasn't going to put up any resistance, and we would've been much closer to the truth today.

But Mr. Boathead didn't think and decided to be another submissive bitch for his gummint, and now, we'll never actually know what happened.
Click to expand...

A terrorist suspect, suspected of attempting to kill hundreds of people in a bombing attack, the one suspected of killing a police officer on campus, the one guy everyone in law enforcement was looking for? Are you insane?

Good lord, I hope one day you don't make that decision.
 
Last edited:
Fiddytree said:
A terrorist suspect, suspected of attempting to kill hundreds of people in a bombing attack, the one suspected of killing a police officer on campus, the one guy everyone in law enforcement was looking for? Are you insane?
Click to expand...

Nope, because unlike the brainwashed masses, I know better than to consider someone a valid suspect simply because my gummint says he's a suspect.

For one to be considered a suspect, he/she must have

1) Opportunity
2) Motive

The individual in question only has #1, not #2.

He doesn't have #2 because assuming he even assuming wanted to "make jihad" (as the gummint claims, but has yet to prove), there would be no motivation for him to simply attack random civilians (since it wouldn't help his jihad) and even if there were, it wouldn't make sense for him to attack a country whose gummint mostly supported his people's side in their ethno-religious conflict w/Russia.

In a nutshell, logic beats gummint propoganda .
 
solletica said:
Nope, because unlike the brainwashed masses, I know better than to consider someone a valid suspect simply because my gummint says he's a suspect.

For one to be considered a suspect, he/she must have

1) Opportunity
2) Motive

The individual in question only has #1, not #2.

He doesn't have #2 because assuming he even assuming wanted to "make jihad" (as the gummint claims, but has yet to prove), there would be no motivation for him to simply attack random civilians (since it wouldn't help his jihad) and even if there were, it wouldn't make sense for him to attack a country whose gummint mostly supported his people's side in their ethno-religious conflict w/Russia.

In a nutshell, logic beats gummint propoganda .
Click to expand...

You give the worst advice.
 
Fiddytree said:
You give the worst advice.
Click to expand...

Nope, I give the logical advice. Although it needn't be said that logical options are generally considered the worst, notably by the right.
 
solletica said:
Nope, I give the logical advice. Although it needn't be said that logical options are generally considered the worst, notably by the right.
Click to expand...

No one would listen to you, sorry.
 
WCH said:
You are weird. Please don't respond to me any longer and I'll do the same.
Click to expand...
I don't blame you, I wouldn't want people going around pointing out my overzealous intent to blame either. But it's a deal. You don't respond to me, I won't respond to you.
solletica said:
The big idiot in this whole thing was the boat owner who stupidly turned the dude over to the (corrupt) feds instead of trying to question the suspect himself. If he was bleeding and unarmed, he certainly wasn't going to put up any resistance, and we would've been much closer to the truth today.

But Mr. Boathead didn't think and decided to be another submissive bitch for his gummint, and now, we'll never actually know what happened.
Click to expand...

Worst. Advice. Ever.

For anyone who might possibly believe this, never ever attempt to interrogate someone who is considered armed, dangerous and suspected of killing and maiming hundreds of people, especially if doing so requires you to obstruct a federal investigation.
 
Slyfox696 said:
never ever attempt to interrogate someone who is considered armed, dangerous and suspected of killing and maiming hundreds of people,
Click to expand...

And never attempt to talk sense into someone childish/naive enough to believe that one is armed and dangerous simply because his gummint claims he's "armed and dangerous". . .

Now officials claim Boston bombing suspect was NOT armed in boat showdown - despite police account of firefight and him 'shooting himself' | Mail Online

Slyfox696 said:
especially if doing so requires you to obstruct a federal investigation.
Click to expand...

And slyfox will now explain to us how simply questioning an individual found bleeding in a boat is tantamount to obstruction of justice (esp. since there's no way to prove that the boat owner should have known that the individual found is the same person the cops are looking for. . .)

He will also explain to us how the gummint could possibly know whether an attempt to question the individual was made if both the individual (and the one questioning him) lied about it.
 
solletica said:
And never attempt to talk sense into someone childish/naive enough to believe that one is armed and dangerous simply because his gummint claims he's "armed and dangerous". . .
Click to expand...
Who give a flying rat's rear end if he actually was armed or not, the fact is he was CONSIDERED armed a dangerous. You call me childish, and you don't bother to understand the words I use.

And slyfox will now explain to us how simply questioning an individual found bleeding in a boat is tantamount to obstruction of justice (esp. since there's no way to prove that the boat owner should have known that the individual found is the same person the cops are looking for. . .)
Click to expand...
Yeah, the guy hiding in the boat gushing blood in the same area as one of the largest manhunts in history was simply a coincidence. :roll:

It would be considered obstruction because you have no right to interrogate the man at all, and any attempt to play along with his hiding from law enforcement would make you a party to his actions. I could not tell you what specific laws you'd be breaking (aiding and abetting? obstruction? conspiracy? harboring a fugitive? all of the above?) but there is absolutely zero reason for you to try to play judge and jury. Turn him over, let the legal system work things out.

He will also explain to us how the gummint could possibly know whether an attempt to question the individual was made if both the individual (and the one questioning him) lied about it.
Click to expand...
First of all, what is gummint? Is that an uneducated pronunciation of government, in your attempt to criticize the legal process? Second of all....what? Are you really now claiming the person who found the suspect in the boat should have interrogated the suspect and then LIED to the police about interrogating him? And you really don't see how that would put you at odds with the law?

Like I said before...Worst. Advice. Ever.
 
Slyfox696 said:
Who give a flying rat's rear end if he actually was armed or not, the fact is he was CONSIDERED armed a dangerous.
Click to expand...

So anyone considered "armed and dangerous" is more likely to be armed and dangerous? ? :rolleyes: :lol:

Here's a a journalist that says that NRA members are "armed and dangerous". . .

Inside the NRA: Armed and Dangerous--An Expose: Jack Anderson: 9780787106775: Amazon.com: Books

So by slyfox's reasoning, we should stay from NRA members and report them to the police.

Slyfox696 said:
You call me childish, and you don't bother to understand the words I use.
Click to expand...

No, merely noted that it's characteristic of the pre-adolescent stage of intellectual development to blindly accord a high degree of credibility to one's government in spite of its penchant for lying.

Slyfox696 said:
Yeah, the guy hiding in the boat gushing blood in the same area as one of the largest manhunts in history was simply a coincidence. :roll:
Click to expand...

No need for coincidence. Boston is a large city w/several gun owners (legal or otherwise), so it's possible that one of several individuals recently shot by a gun would've tried to run away but have been unable to reach help before collapsing.

Slyfox696 said:
It would be considered obstruction because you have no right to interrogate the man at all
Click to expand...

Wrong. Obstruction of justice entails a deliberate attempt to obscure and/or eliminate evidence; merely questioning a person you found in a boat bleeding does neither, so it doesn't count.

Slyfox696 said:
, and any attempt to play along with his hiding from law enforcement would make you a party to his actions. I could not tell you what specific laws you'd be breaking (aiding and abetting? obstruction? conspiracy? harboring a fugitive? all of the above?)
Click to expand...

You can't tell us because you made it up and now can't back up what you posted.

Slyfox696 said:
but there is absolutely zero reason for you to try to play judge and jury. Turn him over, let the legal system work things out.
Click to expand...

The legal system doesn't work unless the accused has a decent lawyer and there's investigation of evidence by someone other than the prosecuting side (i. e. the gummint).

Slyfox696 said:
First of all, what is gummint? Is that an uneducated pronunciation of government, in your attempt to criticize the legal process? Second of all....what? Are you really now claiming the person who found the suspect in the boat should have interrogated the suspect and then LIED to the police about interrogating him?
Click to expand...

Correct.

Slyfox696 said:
And you really don't see how that would put you at odds with the law?
Click to expand...

The law becomes irrelevant when it can't be enforced. When the victim and the person questioning him both lie about what happened, the law can do nothing until that questioning is revealed because there's no evidence that any questioning ever took place.
 
solletica said:
So anyone considered "armed and dangerous" is more likely to be armed and dangerous? ? :rolleyes: :lol:
Click to expand...
No, a person who is armed and dangerous is considered to be armed and dangerous. Are you really resorting to playing ignorant to sell your ridiculousness?

So by slyfox's reasoning, we should stay from NRA members and report them to the police.
Click to expand...
If the first part of their name is "La" and the second part of the name is "Pierre", it might not be a bad idea.

No, merely noted that it's characteristic of the pre-adolescent stage of intellectual development to blindly accord a high degree of credibility to one's government in spite of its penchant for lying.
Click to expand...
Blindly? So...there wasn't a bomb set off in Boston? An MIT officer wasn't killed?

No need for coincidence. Boston is a large city w/several gun owners (legal or otherwise), so it's possible that one of several individuals recently shot by a gun would've tried to run away but have been unable to reach help before collapsing.
Click to expand...
Yes, because with all of those law enforcement officers in the area looking for a dangerous, it's TOTALLY believable another incident in which someone got shot happened and the police didn't know about it. Good call. :roll:

Wrong. Obstruction of justice entails a deliberate attempt to obscure and/or eliminate evidence
Click to expand...
Like, oh I don't know, not informing law enforcement the main suspect in the murders of four people is in your back yard? Yeah, that's not important at all.

You can't tell us because you made it up and now can't back up what you posted.
Click to expand...
No, I cannot tell you because I'm not a lawyer. I do have a cousin who is a prosecuting attorney, if you'd like me to ask her and let you know which criminal offenses would be applicable in that situation, just let me know. I did give a couple of possibilities.

The legal system doesn't work unless the accused has a decent lawyer and there's investigation of evidence by someone other than the prosecuting side (i. e. the gummint).
Click to expand...
Yes...that IS how the legal system works...what are you talking about? That's exactly what should happen here.

Correct.
Click to expand...
Gotcha...so your advice is to approach a possible desparate serial killer who might have a gun when he's hiding in your boat during one of the largest manhunts in history, and then later lie to the police about doing so.

Worst. Advice. Ever.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom