TexasCHLforum.com

bauer wrote:I read somewhere else that Navy EOD was brought in at one point but thats understandable since local bomb squads are usually small in number and they wanted the additional EOD man power just in case and I see no issue in that at all.

FYI...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comi ... egislation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007 (H.R. 5122), which was signed into law on October 17, 2006.[5]

Section 1076 is titled "Use of the Armed Forces in major public emergencies." It provided that:

The President may employ the armed forces... to... restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States when, as a result of a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or incident, or other condition... the President determines that... domestic violence has occurred to such an extent that the constituted authorities of the State or possession are incapable of maintaining public order... or [to] suppress, in a State, any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy if such... a condition... so hinders the execution of the laws... that any part or class of its people is deprived of a right, privilege, immunity, or protection named in the Constitution and secured by law... or opposes or obstructs the execution of the laws of the United States or impedes the course of justice under those laws.[6]

I understand it is possible for federal forces to be used but I don't think that was the case here. It only looks like MA National Guard was called in, that is part of their mission after all....

FWIW I was in 1HBCT 3rd ID when the brigade was put on its CBRNE Consequence Management Reaction Force (CCMRF) mission in late 2008 to 2009. We were the unit that would have been called upon in the instance that you just copied regarding NDAA 2007. I fully understand that federal active duty units can be called upon but it has yet to happen and is all but a last resort (once LE manpower is exhausted, FEMA, National Guard, etc have all been exhausted).

http://www.army.mil/aps/09/information_ ... ccmrf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; (note how the last sentence on the page says "on request from civilian authorities" most likely state Governor)

I don't trust barry one bit but I don't think he pulled anything underhanded and secretive in regards to military forces that were on the ground in Boston during the manhunt. Thats my .02

Edit: to add link

At least they didn't blame it all on the sequester.

A couple of thoughts. I doubt any military was used in this, for police functions. I've heard of none. There may have been some tightened security around military installations, Old Ironsides etc. The manpower was civil FBI, DEA, state police and NG etc and local folk.

I'm of two minds on the lockdown and going house to house. On the one hand, it is easy to see how civil liberties might get sullied, or even bruised in something like that. They had some pretty impressive equipment on display, armor, helos, lots of EBRs. With fairly widespread media coverage, serious abuse would have been detected and publicized, I would think.

On the other, a guy named Adam Sandler reputedly said on a Face book page, "Boston is probably the only city where if you [expletive deleted] with them, they will shut down the whole city, stop everything and find you."

These guys are lucky the cops got 'em. It could have been much worse. They could have been captured by a crew from CNN, MSPMS and New York Times and questioned until they spilled their guts about everything, then misquoted about evverything. Paparazzi take no prisoners! Look how uncle and sisters were treated.

JALLEN wrote: . . . These guys are lucky the cops got 'em. It could have been much worse. They could have been captured by a crew from CNN, MSPMS and New York Times and questioned until they spilled their guts about everything, then misquoted about evverything. Paparazzi take no prisoners! Look how uncle and sisters were treated.

What I can't figure out is why, with all of the shots fired, the cops didn't GET them.

jimlongley wrote:

JALLEN wrote: . . . These guys are lucky the cops got 'em. It could have been much worse. They could have been captured by a crew from CNN, MSPMS and New York Times and questioned until they spilled their guts about everything, then misquoted about evverything. Paparazzi take no prisoners! Look how uncle and sisters were treated.

What I can't figure out is why, with all of the shots fired, the cops didn't GET them.

Yeah, I'm shocked the guy's still alive after, what was it, 30 shots?

Dave2 wrote:

jimlongley wrote:

JALLEN wrote: . . . These guys are lucky the cops got 'em. It could have been much worse. They could have been captured by a crew from CNN, MSPMS and New York Times and questioned until they spilled their guts about everything, then misquoted about evverything. Paparazzi take no prisoners! Look how uncle and sisters were treated.

What I can't figure out is why, with all of the shots fired, the cops didn't GET them.

Yeah, I'm shocked the guy's still alive after, what was it, 30 shots?

Closer to 300 that 30 by my count. Maybe it was "surpressing fire" (firing just to keep the enemy's heads down while you sneak up on them.)

They locked down a city...."lockdown" is the term they use when they pen the criminals up in prison. They ordered people to stay in their homes --because one murderous 19 year old was on the loose. They shut down transportation. They searched peoples homes and confiscated guns. This was a blatant violation of rights and the Constitution, apparently welcomed by the helots in Boston, so really, what difference does it make what uniforms they were wearing? The authorities acted like we were in North Korea. America is dead.

VMI77 wrote:They locked down a city...."lockdown" is the term they use when they pen the criminals up in prison. They ordered people to stay in their homes --because one murderous 19 year old was on the loose. They shut down transportation. They searched peoples homes and confiscated guns. This was a blatant violation of rights and the Constitution, apparently welcomed by the helots in Boston, so really, what difference does it make what uniforms they were wearing? The authorities acted like we were in North Korea. America is dead.

Yep, and the citizens applauded Caesar...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nrkcUV_7Qk&sns=em" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8[/youtube]

Let's see if I can ginally get this thing to play

Queen Amidala wrote:"So this is how liberty dies... with thunderous applause."

IANAL but it would seem to me that the search performed was anything but voluntary. However I would also think that one of the people pulled out of thier home would have to be the one to sue and say "you had no warrant, nor did you have consent, nor were you in hot pursuit....and then sue them for constitutional violations." You would have to be prepared to be called all sorts of names as people are so glad he was caught the have not considered the cost to our freedoms that the search entailed, yet.

mamabearCali wrote:IANAL but it would seem to me that the search performed was anything but voluntary. However I would also think that one of the people pulled out of thier home would have to be the one to sue and say "you had no warrant, nor did you have consent, nor were you in hot pursuit....and then sue them for constitutional violations." You would have to be prepared to be called all sorts of names as people are so glad he was caught the have not considered the cost to our freedoms that the search entailed, yet.

The problem with a lawsuit is simply being removed form the home and given permission to return 10 minutes later is difficult to show any damages.

Most successful 4th Amendment cases result in criminal evidence getting tossed out at trial, but it is hard to show damages for "only" a violation of civil rights. Getting a plaintiff attorney to bring suit for 1/3rd of the damages is impossible when there are no damages.

Jumping Frog wrote:

mamabearCali wrote:IANAL but it would seem to me that the search performed was anything but voluntary. However I would also think that one of the people pulled out of thier home would have to be the one to sue and say "you had no warrant, nor did you have consent, nor were you in hot pursuit....and then sue them for constitutional violations." You would have to be prepared to be called all sorts of names as people are so glad he was caught the have not considered the cost to our freedoms that the search entailed, yet.

The problem with a lawsuit is simply being removed form the home and given permission to return 10 minutes later is difficult to show any damages.

Most successful 4th Amendment cases result in criminal evidence getting tossed out at trial, but it is hard to show damages for "only" a violation of civil rights. Getting a plaintiff attorney to bring suit for 1/3rd of the damages is impossible when there are no damages.

Don't worry, the ACLU will be all over it.

jmra wrote:Don't worry, the ACLU will be all over it.