In the news

Authorities looking for a known terrorist.

Why bother with a trial? In fact, why bother treating him in hospital? Just strap him to the chair already.

The wonderful thing about conspiracism is that you get to ask questions without ever having to actually make a case for anything, conspiracy theorists are like creationists, they only every question the accepted narrative, they never offer up an alternative view for all the 'anomalies' they feel they've found, they just allude to some nefarious behind the scenes plotting.

I expect if there were military contractors there, they were hired to do some kind of security work.

I expect if they had radiation detectors then they were for detecting radiation.

A lot of these questions from the conspiracy theorists are never followed through by the conspiracy theorists themselves, for example they don't ever go on to explain why they think - for example - after the government/puppet government/Jews/NWO has carried out it's 'false flag' attack why it would then need to send people in to monitor radiation levels ?

Can't believe you linked to Infowars, a cesspool of confirmation bias, paranoia, intellectual dishonesty and sheer idiocy.

This post smells of a cover-up.

Actually, that should have said 'known terrorist suspect'. Take the foil hat off. He will get tried under Federal statutes, not local. There is no death penalty in Mass. but Federal statutes have always retained that punishment. I would expect that if he is coherent the trial will be covered much like the McVeigh trial was.

Probable cause gets lots of scrutiny in the courts. Cases are lost and charges are dropped if probable cause cannot be established and any related evidence gets ruled inadmissable. Cops are more careful about that sort of thing.

The wonderful thing about conspiracism is that you get to ask questions without ever having to actually make a case for anything, conspiracy theorists are like creationists, they only every question the accepted narrative, they never offer up an alternative view for all the 'anomalies' they feel they've found, they just allude to some nefarious behind the scenes plotting.

I expect if there were military contractors there, they were hired to do some kind of security work.

I expect if they had radiation detectors then they were for detecting radiation.

A lot of these questions from the conspiracy theorists are never followed through by the conspiracy theorists themselves, for example they don't ever go on to explain why they think - for example - after the government/puppet government/Jews/NWO has carried out it's 'false flag' attack why it would then need to send people in to monitor radiation levels ?

Can't believe you linked to Infowars, a cesspool of confirmation bias, paranoia, intellectual dishonesty and sheer idiocy.
I was writing a whole big paranoid conspiracy parody response.

But it turns out that it's indistinguishable from an actual paranoid conspiracy response.

So what you're saying then is, you're in on it?

I thought so.

Actually, that should have said 'known terrorist suspect'. Take the foil hat off. He will get tried under Federal statutes, not local. There is no death penalty in Mass. but Federal statutes have always retained that punishment. I would expect that if he is coherent the trial will be covered much like the McVeigh trial was.

Probable cause gets lots of scrutiny in the courts. Cases are lost and charges are dropped if probable cause cannot be established and any related evidence gets ruled inadmissable. Cops are more careful about that sort of thing.

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that evidence would be ruled inadmissable if it was discovered in a way that compromised the 4th amendment- but they won't convict him on the evidence found in the boat, they'll convict him on the evidence in his apartment etc.

The coppers had nothing to lose in terms of securing the prosecution in raiding peoples houses- they'd just lose the ability to prosecute the home-owner if they found (for example) a forest of Marijuana plants in the living room whilst looking for the bomber.

But the bombers conviction was nailed on before they started raiding peoples houses.

Seems to be an ends justifies the means situation- "we needed the bomber caught, so we suspended constitutional rights in this case."

You did want us to catch him, didn't you?

But that's now set a precedant.

Can't believe you linked to LFGSS, a cesspool of confirmation bias, paranoia, intellectual dishonesty and sheer idiocy.

Sorry.

Seems to be an ends justifies the means situation- "we needed the bomber caught, so we suspended constitutional rights in this case."

But that's now set a precedant.

The precedent for flouting laws and constitutions has already been well established in the "War on Terror".

Authorities looking for a known terrorist, held within a cordoned off area. There's so much probable cause there it's not even funny and that would get tossed out of court so quickly it's not even funny.
On house-to-house searches and the fourth amendment.

tl;dr scope of area is key.

My understanding (which may be wrong) is that evidence would be ruled inadmissable if it was discovered in a way that compromised the 4th amendment- but they won't convict him on the evidence found in the boat, they'll convict him on the evidence in his apartment etc.

The coppers had nothing to lose in terms of securing the prosecution in raiding peoples houses- they'd just lose the ability to prosecute the home-owner if they found (for example) a forest of Marijuana plants in the living room whilst looking for the bomber.

But the bombers conviction was nailed on before they started raiding peoples houses.

The probable cause for searching people's homes for a fugitive suspect will have legal precedent, I would need to search for the specifics.There would need to be no probable cause for searching the boat - the owner called it in and cooperated with authorities in that instance.

That will be separate for the probable cause for searching the suspect's property for evidence linking him to any crime.

That was my point- I wasn't clear.

The conviction of the bomber won't rely on anything found during the search/pursuit, therefore there is no need (from a preserving the admissability of evidence point of view) to obey any constitutional niceties whilst looking for him.

The probable cause for searching people's homes for a fugitive suspect will have legal precedent, I would need to search for the specifics.
LMGTFY

United States v. Paetsch, — F.Supp.2d —-, 2012 WL 5213011 (D.Colo. 2012) #

"dragnet roadblock at intersection to catch bank robber held reasonable under the Fourth Amendment."

and

Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128 (1978).

"The suspect won’t have Fourth Amendment standing to bring a suit or a motion to suppress to challenge a search of someone else’s house in which he was hiding".

Guidance on the Fourth Amendment from the US Marshalls Service

http://www.usmarshals.gov/foia/Directives-Policy/Fugitive%20Investigations/8.5.pdf

Interesting read about the concept of privacy as established by the courts to be related to the person and not the property. In this particular instance (search in Watertown) the exception used would be related to Emergency or Exigent Circumstances.

Ta TW for one of the case specifics.

But, as we have already established, you're in on it. So you WOULD have that to hand, wouldn't you?

question is was he actually on a date the other day or at an al quaeda training camp...

The two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

If their legislation is anything like Section 17 PACE 1984 then they were probably entering premises to save life and limb and prevent serious damage to property. They were after someone who had nothing to lose so would be justified in the England, Wales and Northern Ireland but I don't know about Scotland.

Im not entirely sure how they can charge him with using a 'weapon of mass destruction' with a straight face.

Last time I checked a WMD was a fucking warhead, not a small homemade devise using black powder and a pressure cooker...

It could be interesting if the definition of WMDs crept sufficiently far from its original meaning to include guns. :)

a fucking warhead

Don't tempt Ed into posting something he might regret.

High capacity magazines might cross over, the gun itself probaby not.

Pressure cooker should be too small-scale to be called WMD.

It's an IED.

Precisely.

Pressure cooker should be too small-scale to be called WMD.

It's an IED.

I disagree... you haven't tasted my missus cooking!!

why are you cooking your missus?