NWS: boston marathon finish line bombed twice EEEEEEEK itshappening.gif

Montoya

Active Member
Jul 13, 2002
23,600
England / Germany
what the fuck?

wn6s2sP.jpg

the dad said that is him :dunno:
 

Mr. November

i've spent a large amount of time in ireland (bro lived there for years and married his wife there). People there don't like americans as much as you'd like to think and displays like that in the airport aren't appreciated. Ireland's love of the US ended when Kennedy died
What you meant to say is that every other country in the world hates America.
 

dumb_end_user

Sad Gus
Oct 5, 2001
18,638
Seattle
werd :rofl:



you can barely see his face you dumb son of a bitch :rofl:
Chest hair.

And did they put a few bullet holes in him before or after they stripped him naked? Did his brother run him over and drag him down the street before or after the cops shot him (apparently after they had him cuffed).

Conveniently ducking the eye witness request. :coolugh:

:rofl: at you.
 

Pvt. Joker

OT Supporter
Nov 10, 2000
289,577
Living rent free in your head
Chest hair.

And did they put a few bullet holes in him before or after they stripped him naked? Did his brother run him over and drag him down the street before or after the cops shot him (apparently after they had him cuffed).

Conveniently ducking the eye witness request. :coolugh:

:rofl: at you.

Turn on CNN, they've shown the interviews 1000 times. I'm not doing the work for you. The dude was captured and his brother ran over him and another cop. The cop was whisked away in <1 minute while the bomber laid there for 15+ minutes waiting for an ambulance
 

dumb_end_user

Sad Gus
Oct 5, 2001
18,638
Seattle
Turn on CNN, they've shown the interviews 1000 times. I'm not doing the work for you. The dude was captured and his brother ran over him and another cop. The cop was whisked away in <1 minute while the bomber laid there for 15+ minutes waiting for an ambulance
:rofl: at you.

I'm sure he's just as credible as dude's Aunt. Or mother. Or father.

Don't worry about answering all the "hard" questions I'm asking. Stick to your story from some guy (who wears a tin foil hat like yourself) who was peering out of his living room window at 1:30 am for a clear and concise picture of the events that transpired that evening.
 

Pvt. Joker

OT Supporter
Nov 10, 2000
289,577
Living rent free in your head
:rofl: at you.

I'm sure he's just as credible as dude's Aunt. Or mother. Or father.

Don't worry about answering all the "hard" questions I'm asking. Stick to your story from some guy (who wears a tin foil hat like yourself) who was peering out of his living room window at 1:30 am for a clear and concise picture of the events that transpired that evening.

I have no fucking clue what you're even arguing about.
 

Pvt. Joker

OT Supporter
Nov 10, 2000
289,577
Living rent free in your head
you are just dancing around the questions he asks

I'll take that to mean "I don't have anywhere else to go with this so I'm just going to feign ignorance or ignore the questions you are asking." :coolugh:

more like "i'm too lazy to google it"

What's the difference if that's the suspect or not? He got run over and left for dead. You're arguing about chest hair
 

dumb_end_user

Sad Gus
Oct 5, 2001
18,638
Seattle
more like "i'm too lazy to google it"

What's the difference if that's the suspect or not? He got run over and left for dead. You're arguing about chest hair
You, yourself said that he (the naked cuffed guy in the pictures) is unequivocally the [deceased] suspect.

I'm saying that without a doubt you are full of shit and that unfortunate gentleman just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. I am also saying that the eyewitness report that you are referring to is also complete crap.

The lack of chest hair, and oh yeah, the fact that he is naked, standing upright, and without any bullet holes in him are all what cues a logically thinking individual would use to infer the same thing.

Cliffs: your tinfoil hat is wrapped a little too tight.
 

autox

Twitter bot
Oct 18, 2002
121,300
I feel like there may be some news every time I open this thread, and 99% of the time its the same fucking bullshit :ugh:
 

seventh circle

For the love of jeebus tell me they read him his Miranda rights before he started telling them anything...

The Miranda rule is not, however, absolute. An exception exists in cases of "public safety". This limited and case-specific exception allows certain unadvised statements (given without Miranda warnings) to be admissible into evidence at trial when they were elicited in circumstances where there was great danger to public safety.[8]
The public safety exception derives from New York v. Quarles (1984), a case in which the Supreme Court considered the admissibility of a statement elicited by a police officer who apprehended a rape suspect who was thought to be carrying a firearm. The arrest took place in a crowded grocery store. When the officer arrested the suspect, he found an empty shoulder holster, handcuffed the suspect, and asked him where the gun was. The suspect nodded in the direction of the gun (which was near some empty cartons) and said, "The gun is over there". The Supreme Court found that such an unadvised statement was admissible in evidence because "n a kaleidoscopic situation such as the one confronting these officers, where spontaneity rather than adherence to a police manual is necessarily the order of the day, the application of the exception we recognize today should not be made to depend on post hoc findings at a suppression hearing concerning the subjective motivation of the police officer".[9] Thus, the jurisprudential rule of Miranda must yield in "a situation where concern for public safety must be paramount to adherence to the literal language of the prophylactic rules enunciated in Miranda".
The rule of Miranda is not, therefore, absolute and can be a bit more elastic in cases of public safety.[8] Under this exception, to be admissible in the government's direct case at a trial, the questioning must not be "actually compelled by police conduct which overcame his will to resist," and must be focused and limited, involving a situation "in which police officers ask questions reasonably prompted by a concern for the public safety."[10]
In 2010, the Federal Bureau of Investigation encouraged agents to use a broad interpretation of public safety-related questions in terrorism cases, stating that the "magnitude and complexity" of terrorist threats justified "a significantly more extensive public safety interrogation without Miranda warnings than would be permissible in an ordinary criminal case," continuing to list such examples as: "questions about possible impending or coordinated terrorist attacks; the location, nature and threat posed by weapons that might pose an imminent danger to the public; and the identities, locations, and activities or intentions of accomplices who may be plotting additional imminent attacks." A Department of Justice spokesman described this position as not altering the constitutional right, but as clarifying existing flexibility in the rule.[11]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

About Us

  • Please do not post anything that violates any Local, State, Federal or International Laws. Your privacy is protected. You have the right to be forgotten. Site funded by advertising, link monetization and member support.
OT v15.8.1 Copyright © 2000-2022 Offtopic.com
Served by fu.offtopic.com

Online statistics

Members online
424
Guests online
73
Total visitors
497

Forum statistics

Threads
369,605
Messages
16,899,438
Members
86,875
Latest member
Theodor