Man with a chain saw that was apparently covered with blood was let into the U.S.
Jun 8th, 2005, 08:56 AM
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Man with a chain saw that was apparently covered with blood was let into the U.S.
I hope that they do a better job of security at the airports.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...t_into_the_us/
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...t_into_the_us/
Jun 8th, 2005, 09:04 AM
#2
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There was no reason to hold the guy, no warrents out for arrest and they can't tell dried blood from rust or paint. All weapons he had were confiscated and he was fingerprinted. Not much else they could do.
Jun 8th, 2005, 09:26 AM
#4
Guest
Posts: n/a
WHY ARE PEOPLE MAKING A BIG DEAL ABOUT THIS??? There was nothing illegal about someone showing up at the border with those items. They interviewed him for 2 hours, confiscated all his items and let him go. He had no warrants and was a US citizen. Red stains doesn't always mean blood and as of right now, they still haven't been able to confirm it's blood or not!
Jun 8th, 2005, 09:33 AM
#5
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,986
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have not yet seen anyone making a "big deal" about it, but it's in the news because it's a really strange story. People find it interesting, and it is a bit creepy, even if everything was done "right".
Jun 8th, 2005, 09:53 AM
#6
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regardless of what the police can and can't do - what normal citizen lets a man with a chain saw and what could be blood all over him into their car? And it was more than one person who gave him a ride!
Say what you want, but our system is convoluted. We let someone toting an arsenal into the country and are daily detaining people merely based on the color of their skin or their accent - because they 'could' be affiliated with a terrorist group.
Somehow that comparison is just wrong.
Say what you want, but our system is convoluted. We let someone toting an arsenal into the country and are daily detaining people merely based on the color of their skin or their accent - because they 'could' be affiliated with a terrorist group.
Somehow that comparison is just wrong.
Jun 8th, 2005, 10:34 AM
#10
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because he isn't wanted in the US, doesn't mean he hasn't potentially done anything wrong. Infact he was due in Canadian court (for threatening the man who was decapitated I think) and a 'person of interest' in regards to a double murder - involving the guy that was decapitated.
Too bad the US and Canada didn't communicate a little better before they let him go.
Too bad the US and Canada didn't communicate a little better before they let him go.
Jun 8th, 2005, 10:41 AM
#11
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 3,122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Too bad the US and Canada didn't communicate a little better before they let him go.
No kidding, you would think in that 2 hours they had him they might have made a call just to be sure...especially since it seemed suspicious in the first place...
No kidding, you would think in that 2 hours they had him they might have made a call just to be sure...especially since it seemed suspicious in the first place...
Jun 8th, 2005, 11:04 AM
#14
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Clearly, there is 1) a reason to be upset about the way that the US Customs agents handled this case; and 2) a reason that the obviously deranged man should not have been let into this country.
The agency did not do its job. They could have called Canada (excerpt from the article that was linked: "On the same day Despres crossed the border, he was due in a Canadian court to be sentenced on charges he assaulted and threatened to kill Fulton's son-in-law, Frederick Mowat, last August."). When someone is coming from another country, in this case from Canada to the United States, I'm sure that the US can ask for a Canadian background/criminal check on a person as suspect as this guy obviously was. If that is not possible and the person attempting to enter the US looks as dangerous/criminal as this man was, then he should be detained indefinitely. There was reasonable suspicion and I would even argue probable cause to detain this person (PC because of the bloody chain saw and arsenal of weapons).
Ahnnold: I'm pretty sure that even the ACLU would have been comfortable w/holding this psycho longer than two hours. How could it be "profiling" as you say if the killer was a white male. Profiling applies to targeting minority groups that stereotypically commit certain types of crime. I've noticed your assorted posts regarding how liberals are evil, stupid, etc. While I would not classify myself as liberal, I definitely wouldn't be as far to the right as you are (I'm assuming your screen name is taken from the articulate Governor of California who is doing such a great job right now). The ACLU may have the right to bring lawsuits, however, for your information criminal justice laws in this country in the last 20 years have become, right or wrong, increasingly police friendly. The Rehnquist court has carved out many exceptions to search and detention rules, therefore, the customs agents had every right to detain the guy (also, at border entry points agents have more rights to search/detain under the law than regular law enforcement officers have).
The agency did not do its job. They could have called Canada (excerpt from the article that was linked: "On the same day Despres crossed the border, he was due in a Canadian court to be sentenced on charges he assaulted and threatened to kill Fulton's son-in-law, Frederick Mowat, last August."). When someone is coming from another country, in this case from Canada to the United States, I'm sure that the US can ask for a Canadian background/criminal check on a person as suspect as this guy obviously was. If that is not possible and the person attempting to enter the US looks as dangerous/criminal as this man was, then he should be detained indefinitely. There was reasonable suspicion and I would even argue probable cause to detain this person (PC because of the bloody chain saw and arsenal of weapons).
Ahnnold: I'm pretty sure that even the ACLU would have been comfortable w/holding this psycho longer than two hours. How could it be "profiling" as you say if the killer was a white male. Profiling applies to targeting minority groups that stereotypically commit certain types of crime. I've noticed your assorted posts regarding how liberals are evil, stupid, etc. While I would not classify myself as liberal, I definitely wouldn't be as far to the right as you are (I'm assuming your screen name is taken from the articulate Governor of California who is doing such a great job right now). The ACLU may have the right to bring lawsuits, however, for your information criminal justice laws in this country in the last 20 years have become, right or wrong, increasingly police friendly. The Rehnquist court has carved out many exceptions to search and detention rules, therefore, the customs agents had every right to detain the guy (also, at border entry points agents have more rights to search/detain under the law than regular law enforcement officers have).
Jun 8th, 2005, 11:31 AM
#17
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 12,885
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's why our government really needs the "no-fly" list????
This guy is accused of killing people right next door and nobody blinks an eye (hardly) and lets him in after they discover knives, hatchet, a chainsaw with possible blood stains. Cat Stevens is flying from London and the plane gets diverted.... go figure
The no-fly list is really working, NOT!!!
This guy is accused of killing people right next door and nobody blinks an eye (hardly) and lets him in after they discover knives, hatchet, a chainsaw with possible blood stains. Cat Stevens is flying from London and the plane gets diverted.... go figure
The no-fly list is really working, NOT!!!
