Some sort of explosion near the Boston Marathon Finish Line reported on twitter

[Brian4Liberty]

The other devices were not explosives, and the library was just an electrical fire.

Typical. Got to love how that Police Commissioner got up there and talked about the "attack" at the Library.

 

[Czolgosz]

Call me crazy, but I'm no longer empathetic towards America's trouble w/ people trying to blow it up.

 

[sailingaway]

Call me crazy, but I'm no longer empathetic towards America's trouble w/ people trying to blow it up.

I am. I am empathetic to all innocent civilians mowed down or injured by those types who think hurting innocent civilians is ok. Here or abroad. Those people watching a race who had limbs amputated and those children who had nails and BBs taken out of them absolutely have my empathy.

That does not prevent rational evaluation of foreign policy and due process.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

"they are permitted to commit crimes in order to bring a suspect to "Just-Us""



No, they aren't. Can cops lie to suspects? Yes. Do they act in ways that we would find reprehensible and immoral on occasion (or even often)? Yes. But they are not permitted to commit crimes. If someone is allowed to do something, it isn't a crime. When they do things that they are not allowed to do, it is illegal. Whether they are prosecuted or not is a different story, but they aren't allowed to do things that... they aren't allowed to do.

*facepalm*

Such naivete. Police officers are very rarely prosecuted. It is hardly fair to say that they are not allowed to do certain things when they have the express approval of their department in doing things that are illegal. They burned Dorner's cabin down without a trial. They kill people and don't face any consequences. They speed regularly and they are not pulled over. In fact, they are permitted to speed in order to catch someone who is speeding because that person is NOT allowed to speed. The standards are different, no matter how you look at it. Even the most minor things we assume it's okay for a police officer to do these days when, if a mundane did it, they would get hard time for their crimes. Even if they are not technically allowed to break the law, which in many cases, they are, it is pretty redundant to point that out when the law is effectively defunct because even if their department knows what they did, not a damn thing will be done.

 

[ClydeCoulter]

What the hell is this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2970918888111
Video shows body part (or some bloody thing) then disappears after man walks by?
Actually, the object that remains is part of the original before he walks by.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

No, you're absolutely missing the point. This is semantics, and I'm not even begging the question. If a person is allowed to do something, it is not a crime for them to do it. Period. If a cop is allowed to dress as a prostitute to find willing Johns, it is not a crime for a cop to dress as a prostitute to find willing Johns. The law allows for such activities to take place. When a cop performs that activity, a cop is not breaking the law.

And it isn't as though the cop is actually selling sex for a profit. You could argue that they're doing something worse, though -- trying to imprison people who just want to buy something that is legal to get for free.

When a cop gets hammered and goes home from the bar and beats his wife to death, he committed a crime. It was not legal for him to do that. Whether he gets prosecuted or not -he almost certainly would be prosecuted- is another story.

The point is that you can't just change the definition of a word. Either an action performed by an individual is legal, or it isn't. Because you feel something should be illegal for another to do, does not make it so.

So what you're saying is that whatever cops do defines the law? So the law could change at any moment based on what cops find acceptable to do?

What you seem to be saying is that, when cops are not on duty and they commit a crime, it is illegal. When they are on duty and everything they do is illegal for the general public to do, it is not illegal for them?

I don't remember any clause in any law saying it's legal for cops to do something that is illegal when they are on duty. The point is that the police did not change the law when they started doing illegal activities as part of SOP. They just started doing it and people accepted it, even though it was still illegal.

 

[CPUd]

What the hell is this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2970918888111
Video shows body part (or some bloody thing) then disappears after man walks by?
Actually, the object that remains is part of the original before he walks by.

Adobe After Effects.

 

[PaulConventionWV]

It is entrapment, which is technically illegal.

Many years ago, undercover narcotics officers couldn't lie when they were asked if they were cops. No laws changed - just that the courts said it was ok after all.

And in a similar vein, there was no penalty for not telling the truth to the cops. Now, they've changed things around so that they're allowed to lie to us, but we're going to jail if we lie to them.

If you're ok with that, though, it doesn't surprise me on the least.

To be fair, the courts have jurisprudence, so any ruling they make becomes law for their jurisdiction. There are better examples.

 

[tod evans]

What the hell is this? https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=2970918888111
Video shows body part (or some bloody thing) then disappears after man walks by?
Actually, the object that remains is part of the original before he walks by.

Propaganda arm of government...

 

[Peace&Freedom]

What happened with the rumors about the library explosion and other devices being found? Any of that confirmed today, or was it just panic?

They weren't rumors, they were confirmed by police and reported by local and national media. Just as with OKC, et al disasters, as soon as the FBI takes control of the investigation, the media falls in line with "the FBI says no other bombs or devices were found." Yesterday was like deja vu for me, as I remember similarly watching the OKC coverage as it happened that morning, including repeated confirmations by local police, firefighters, EOD, and building security about multiple bombs being found strapped to columns. As soon as the feds took over handling the media, it flipped to one bomb, one nut, no other bombs or suspects. The false flag planners never change their MO when it comes to cover-ups.

 

[devil21]

Propaganda arm of government...

It's a flag on the ground, best I can tell. probably on a string and got pulled out of the picture by something going on behind, probably the scaffolding being moved. Is a weird video but it doesn't "disappear", you can see it move.

 

[The Northbreather]

No, you're absolutely missing the point. This is semantics, and I'm not even begging the question. If a person is allowed to do something, it is not a crime for them to do it. Period. If a cop is allowed to dress as a prostitute to find willing Johns, it is not a crime for a cop to dress as a prostitute to find willing Johns. The law allows for such activities to take place. When a cop performs that activity, a cop is not breaking the law.

And it isn't as though the cop is actually selling sex for a profit. You could argue that they're doing something worse, though -- trying to imprison people who just want to buy something that is legal to get for free.

When a cop gets hammered and goes home from the bar and beats his wife to death, he committed a crime. It was not legal for him to do that. Whether he gets prosecuted or not -he almost certainly would be prosecuted- is another story.

The point is that you can't just change the definition of a word. Either an action performed by an individual is legal, or it isn't. Because you feel something should be illegal for another to do, does not make it so.

I think you're missing the point.

Fact is, the higher up the chain you go the more forgiveness you are given for "good crimes" under a collectivist system.

Hell, once your the president daily murder becomes justified, and everything in between. As long as you do these crimes for the "greater good of our people" than its ok.

 

[KingNothing]

Hell, once your the president daily murder becomes justified, and everything in between. As long as you do these crimes for the "greater good of our people" than its ok.

If the president beat his wife and got caught, it would not be legal. He might not be prosecuted, but his actions would not be legal. Might people effectively cover for him? Yes. But a lack of successful prosecution does not make an act legal.


There are things that police officers can legally do that the rest of us cannot legally do. This argument is mind-numbing, and it absolutely does not beg the question to make that claim, as my religious friend suggested several posts back because it is not the same as saying "a cop acted, so therefore the action was legal." I am saying that "if an action is legal for an individual to take and an individual takes that action, the individual did not commit a crime." And the corollary to that statement is then "if an action is illegal for an individual to take and an individual takes that action and is not prosecuted, the individual still committed a crime."

I'm actually frightened by how many people are getting lost in this argument.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

Might I ask what difference does it make whether it is legal or not if you aren't prosecuted for it?

For all intents and purposes, it might as well have been legal.

 

[The Northbreather]

If the president beat his wife and got caught, it would not be legal. He might not be prosecuted, but his actions would not be legal. Might people effectively cover for him? Yes. But a lack of successful prosecution does not make an act legal.


There are things that police officers can legally do that the rest of us cannot legally do. This argument is mind-numbing, and it absolutely does not beg the question to make that claim, as my religious friend suggested several posts back because it is not the same as saying "a cop acted, so therefore the action was legal." I am saying that "if an action is legal for an individual to take and an individual takes that action, the individual did not commit a crime." And the corollary to that statement is then "if an action is illegal for an individual to take and an individual takes that action and is not prosecuted, the individual still committed a crime."

I'm actually frightened by how many people are getting lost in this argument.

Nobody is lost.

You are being quite petty and are being called out on it.

 

[Brian4Liberty]

They weren't rumors, they were confirmed by police and reported by local and national media. Just as with OKC, et al disasters, as soon as the FBI takes control of the investigation, the media falls in line with "the FBI says no other bombs or devices were found." Yesterday was like deja vu for me, as I remember similarly watching the OKC coverage as it happened that morning, including repeated confirmations by local police, firefighters, EOD, and building security about multiple bombs being found strapped to columns. As soon as the feds took over handling the media, it flipped to one bomb, one nut, no other bombs or suspects. The false flag planners never change their MO when it comes to cover-ups.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The story changes over time once the hysteria and rumors are explained or disproven. Rumors and panic flow freely, even among the Police and media during these events.

 

[kcchiefs6465]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. The story changes over time once the hysteria and rumors are explained or disproven. Rumors and panic flow freely, even among the Police and media during these events.

Zippyjuan had a quote from the library that an explosion did not go off and that it was a simple electrical fire while the Commissioner was still giving his press conference. About 35 minutes later BPD announced that it was indeed, just an electrical fire. I agree with your post and was just adding a little more information to your previous question of what ever happened to additional bombs or a bomb exploding at JFK library. As I see it, the Commissioner was rushed into giving a press conference before they had all the facts. (pretty much any facts, actually) He made a few assumptions, and a few weren't correct.

 

[dillo]

They weren't rumors, they were confirmed by police and reported by local and national media. Just as with OKC, et al disasters, as soon as the FBI takes control of the investigation, the media falls in line with "the FBI says no other bombs or devices were found." Yesterday was like deja vu for me, as I remember similarly watching the OKC coverage as it happened that morning, including repeated confirmations by local police, firefighters, EOD, and building security about multiple bombs being found strapped to columns. As soon as the feds took over handling the media, it flipped to one bomb, one nut, no other bombs or suspects. The false flag planners never change their MO when it comes to cover-ups.

In this age of cell phones, you would think somebody would take some pictures. You would also have to safely assume that the FBI knows this and would be stupid to come out this early with a blatant cover up when there could literally be 100s of contradictory hard evidence out there.

 

[Lucille]

Ban pressure cookers ASAP! There's no second amendment right to a pressure cooker.

I just bought one a few weeks ago! I suppose I'm on another list, and am half expecting thugs to show up to my door to interrogate me over my recent purchase (after they shoot the dog, of course).

 

[BSU kid]

This is a picture of the Saudi guy who is a "witness", despite the fact his house was searched. Also likely the guy caught in the park.