Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

Too funny.Damn good thing that isn't what happened then.

I think that what the people want is fewer people being killed on the highway. So when the law is passed that a .05 BAC is now the definition of being drunk no one says much because they all agree that we want fewer people dieing on the highway. The fact that .05 BAC is the equivalent to one beer for many people is lost in the fervour. Are you impaired after one beer?We lose 800 people a yr in Ontario to brain injuries. The logic that is being used with regard to dd laws would have us all wearing helmets and if you are found to be without your helmet then you will be arrested. Safety first yeah?We are forever being reduced to the lowest common denominator. You would have to back that up. I see that by far the majority of officers killed are killed by accident. Often by other officers. I cant seem to find out how many people have been killed by the police. Even so, you seldom need to kill someone to render them harmless. Especially given all of our wonderful technology.So I see a great disparity in the fact that I can be severely punished for slightly increasing the possibility of causing harm to another and many others are kept safe even after actually causing harm to another.Closer to the topic, I think that there are some risks that we need to endure in order to enjoy the benefits of being free.

When 8 guys with guns surround your house and ask if they can look around what do you say?Of course, if you have nothing to hide then why prevent anybody from looking around?

The first thing I say is "Why?."

I enthusiastically agree.Unfortunately, with the american government constantly pushing the 'defcon 5 button,' the fear of most cowardly and ignorant americans is through the roof. The final result is the public cannot hand over their rights and liberties quick enough to hope the already ridiculously low risk of terrorist attack (just eleven deaths since 9/11), is even lower. Edited by dronester, : added image

The point is they shouldn't have been at that person's house in the first place. That's what was unreasonable about the search. It has nothing to do with how they conducted themselves once at the person's house.Going off of a few items searched on the internet (if in fact this guy actually did that and wasn't set up by a disgruntled coworker or boss) is no reason to search someone's home. Feels like some serious police state shit. How was this related to terrorism? If it's not obvious to you then I guess you're cool with how this all went down.- Oni

I'm very cool with how this went down, in fact I think it was handled extremely well.And yes, I think the police should have been there in the first place. They received a report that an employee or ex-employee had been researching the Boston bombing as well as pressure cookers and backpacks on a company computer system.Had the police not investigated I would think they were very derelict in their duties. I also imagine that had they not investigated and had there been a terrorist attack they would have been loudly condemned by the entertainment system jokingly called "News" in the US ever since the US Conservatives destroyed reporting and news.

We are forever reducing ourselves to the lowest common denominator. Since you can't do it, I won't feel obligated to do it either. Just out of curiosity, how many police officers have you met and spoken to face to face? (And not just when they were writing you a ticket.) As far as the RCMP is concerned, at least, it is true that far more members die in car accidents, drownings, etc. than by "human intervention". I have personally never heard of a case of a police officer accidentally killing another.

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"Go back to bed America, your government is in control...- Oni

More sophomoric rhetoric and misrepresentation of what actually happened.I have never said that anyone should trade freedom for temporary security. I do not see any indication that any freedoms were traded or rights infringed.

Sure you did, you just don't care to realize that what you're saying suggests that very thing. I know that. But it doesn't mean they weren't. It just means you don't see where it happened. The system has that effect.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

Please show where I said that.What you might THINK I suggested is irrelevant to what I have actually said.

By advocating the search of someone's home on the behest of a former employer because you searched a few words on the internet (if that part is even true) you are in fact suggesting that we trade our freedom for temporary security.The fact that you fail to recognize that does not mean it's not happening.- Oni

But that is NOT what happened.The reality is that the police got a report and investigated the report.It really is that simple.

I just googled "backpack pressure cooker". I was hoping for ads about lightweight pressure cookers for hikers but I got a whole page of references to this news story. I'd hate to have to actually buy a backpack pressure cooker over the Internet.Then I googled "build your own hydrogen bomb".I'll try to report back when my freedom starts ebbing away.