And in the end, it wasn't even necessary. Dude goes out for a smoke, and notices his boat cover's ****ed up. Calls the right people.
Do you think anything will come of this?
Think maybe that family said no, get a warrant? I wonder?
Think maybe that family said no, get a warrant? I wonder?
Think maybe that family said no, get a warrant? I wonder?
Big Dog nailed it. :cheersmate:
Lurker? Got something to add here? :-)
Jeez. Just look at those law-abiding citizens, in their own homes minding their own business, being frog-marched down the street with their arms up in the air like they're common criminals.
Not quite frog-marched, but close. Definitely involuntary.
I gotta hand it to Lurker. She's opinionated, informed (usually), and generally correct.
Not in this case, however.
Did you watch the video? They weren't given a chance to say anything. My dogs bark and jump on anyone that comes in the door, because they're extremely friendly. They're Lhasas raised by me. If this shit would have happened here, my dogs would have been dead. ...and a few cops would have been dead as would I. I would see 5 shades of red if my boys were killed by a bunch of Damn Constitution-ignoring cops. I'd have retreated, armed, and went into an insane rage. That I can assure you. The reason I have a firearm everywhere within 10' of anywhere I am in my house is because if some criminals break in, the dogs are there faster than me. I see it as taking out a threat before they kill one of my boys.
I'm not some billy badass, I'm just saying how it'd turn out if this shit happened to me and they dispatched my dogs, the dogs "I" pulled out of their mother, Bella. I don't give a **** WHAT uniform you wear, sheriff, police, FBI, or ****ing 101st Airborne. You kill my dogs, in MY home, someone is dying with me.
(Sorry to hijack but just had to say I love Lhasas. Have owned a few and if I get a pooch again, it's gonna be a Lhasa. )
What about this poor guy's boat? It has to be trashed after all this crap.
I could fill up this thread with pictures. Most of the older posters were here when I birthed the first 3. Then the second 6. ...out of a tiny little girl. We kept the last born and the biggest born. That's who I have now. Bentley is about 20 Lbs, Brutus is 40. Bella, the mom, and Bailey, the dad, are with my ex-wife. These guys are my heart.
Did you watch the video? They weren't given a chance to say anything. My dogs bark and jump on anyone that comes in the door, because they're extremely friendly. They're Lhasas raised by me. If this shit would have happened here, my dogs would have been dead. ...and a few cops would have been dead as would I. I would see 5 shades of red if my boys were killed by a bunch of Damn Constitution-ignoring cops. I'd have retreated, armed, and went into an insane rage. That I can assure you. The reason I have a firearm everywhere within 10' of anywhere I am in my house is because if some criminals break in, the dogs are there faster than me. I see it as taking out a threat before they kill one of my boys.
I'm not some billy badass, I'm just saying how it'd turn out if this shit happened to me and they dispatched my dogs, the dogs "I" pulled out of their mother, Bella. I don't give a **** WHAT uniform you wear, sheriff, police, FBI, or ****ing 101st Airborne. You kill my dogs, in MY home, someone is dying with me.
Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched U.S. v Smith 1986
And the first house they didn't evac for safety reasons...had the bomber run in there and martyred himself and the occupants...the survivors or their relatives would have sued the shit out of every local state and federal authority involved for not protecting them.
I'm curious to see how some of you think this is actually a violation since there was a public safety concern going on. None of these people were being arrested...they weren't being evicted nor were they suspected of anything. Nothing was siezed from their homes and they were allowed to return.
What you're forgetting is something called "Exigent circumstance" and it applies in this instance.
Go ahead...someone do their best Alex Jones and tell me that a cop killing IED planing bomb thrower...armed...extremely dangerous and even willing to run over his own brother to avoid capture doesn't fall under the definition of "Exigent circumstances" when it comes to searching those people's houses and getting them out of their for their own safety.
If you're gonna cite the Constitution...makre sure you read ALL of the Amendment that you think is being violated and has your panties in a bunch before you go crying wolf.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
Ok lets play out this scenario.
9/11.
Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood.
Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out".
Would you still be yelling this silly "4th Amendment violation" crap?
And the first house they didn't evac for safety reasons...had the bomber run in there and martyred himself and the occupants...the survivors or their relatives would have sued the shit out of every local state and federal authority involved for not protecting them.
I'm curious to see how some of you think this is actually a violation since there was a public safety concern going on. None of these people were being arrested...they weren't being evicted nor were they suspected of anything. Nothing was siezed from their homes and they were allowed to return.
What you're forgetting is something called "Exigent circumstance" and it applies in this instance.
Go ahead...someone do their best Alex Jones and tell me that a cop killing IED planing bomb thrower...armed...extremely dangerous and even willing to run over his own brother to avoid capture doesn't fall under the definition of "Exigent circumstances" when it comes to searching those people's houses and getting them out of their for their own safety.
If you're gonna cite the Constitution...makre sure you read ALL of the Amendment that you think is being violated and has your panties in a bunch before you go crying wolf.
And the case would have been thrown out as the Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect.
I don't "think" it's a violation; I KNOW it's a violation.
Problem with "exigent" is it is very subjective. Who gets to decide what is exigent and what constitutional rights can be trampled on? The cops? Without due process? And how is that not a violation of the 4th Amendment?
Wow, call us Alex Jones. Next you'll be telling us we're against ALL forms of government because we want it limited. That's exactly what you're doing, going from one extreme to the other. If one damn moron can lock down a city, give permission to cops to drag people out of their homes without warning or warrants at gunpoint, the Damn terrorists have already won.
Ok. Feel free to show me what I failed to read:
I'll put my understanding of the 4th Amendment up against yours any day of the week, my friend. And if you're going to claim "exigent circumstances", make sure you know what it really means before you use it to excuse improper police actions. A general "public safety concern" (to use your words), alone, does not constitute exigent circumstances- that would be a police state.
Hot pursuit and plain view are the most common exigent circumstances. "Hot pursuit" means actually following a suspect onto private property, not arbitrarily setting a perimeter and searching everything within that perimeter. "Plain view" means observing through reasonable means, a violation of law, an immediate and unavoidable threat to public safety, or the presence of an identified suspect, from a place where the observing officer is lawfully engaged.
Exigent circumstances must create the most limited infringement of a citizen's constitutional or civil rights. Absent exigent circumstances, law enforcement must ask permission to enter a residence, or get a warrant
Pointing a weapon at a person legitimately places him in fear of losing his life, and is a felony if done by a private person (absent an immediate threat). Law enforcement pointing weapons at a person who is not suspected of violating the law, or who does not present an articulable threat to an officer or civilian, is a violation of that person's 4th Amendment right. "Officer safety" alone does not constitute an exception to the 4th Amendment, otherwise police could point their weapons at citizens "for the officer's safety" at all times, with impunity.
Ordering a person (who is not a suspect) from his own home at gunpoint, and walking that person out of his own home at gunpoint with his hands on his head (as shown in a photo on this thread), are violations of the 4th Amendment.
The citizen's remedy for these violations are criminal or civil action under 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. FBI.gov explanation of the statute. (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes)
You're wrong.
You WISH it was a violation...therefore you think it is.
I guess you missed the court case I cited tht were this to go to court would be cited as Justification. Since you missed it the first time I'll post and link to it again.
U.S. v. SMITH
797 F.2d 836 (1986)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 16, 1986.
The Warrantless Search and Seizure
http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=19861633797F2d836_11490.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7
Wow I seem to have struck a nerve. And there's not one thing in my years of posting here or at ToS that would indicate what I bolded.
No I didn't say that. Your words not mine. I merely pointed out where you're letting hysterics trum common sense and reality.
I'll stick with decided case law. You guys stick with Alex Jones.
Ok lets play out this scenario.
9/11.
Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood.
Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out".
Would you still be yelling this silly "4th Amendment violation" crap?
Really? I'm wrong? The cops do have a duty to protect? Hmm, ok. Take your pick:
Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched
Put the projector down, TRG. It is you that "thinks" it's not a violation.
Care to explain how that has anything to do with what happened? Smith was suspected of trafficking narcotics. What were these people suspected of doing?
Officer Haran was legally upon the wing of the Smith aircraft when it was first detected parked at the Durango airport in order to determine whether it was occupied by smugglers who may have been armed and dangerous.
the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched
Again, what were these people suspected of doing? Being terrorists? Anything to back it up? Is there a paper trail? Are there voice recordings?
No, I gathered that from you comparing us to Alex Jones because we don't believe cops should be able to go door to door, guns drawn, forcing people out of their homes with their hands over their heads with no justification whatsoever. "There might be a terrorist in Watertown" is not justification to violate the Constitution because "there might be a terrorist" in any number of towns. [/quyote]
I don't eitehr. You're assuming that because I disagree this one time I believe it should be this way all the time and you couldn't be more wrong. There wasn't a "might" to there being a terrorist in Watertown...there WAS a terrorist on the loose in Watertown. I listened to the scanner from the time I got here Friday morning until they shut it off right before I left. Go look at the updates I was posting in Breaking News on this. There was no possibly...no maybe or could be...ther WAS a cop killing bomb throwing Islamofascist terrorist on the loose in Watertown.
[quoteSlippery slope you seem to be going down, TRG.
I'll play out your scenario.
The government receives a report that four airliners have been hijacked, and the hijackers plan to (meaning "maybe") crash them somewhere in the cities of New York and Washington DC, within the next X hours. For the purposes of your scenario, the suburbs don't count.
In response to this threat, the police in both cities enter the homes and businesses of the residents without consent or warrant, and order (meaning force) the people into the streets, at gunpoint. They have violated the constitutional rights of those citizens.
But, they have bigger problems, because now all of those people are in the streets, and the airliners may be coming.
Ummm... what was the point of this scenario, again?
Could a judge issue a single search warrant that would cover an entire neighborhood?
Just asking.
I don't eitehr. You're assuming that because I disagree this one time I believe it should be this way all the time and you couldn't be more wrong. There wasn't a "might" to there being a terrorist in Watertown...there WAS a terrorist on the loose in Watertown. I listened to the scanner from the time I got here Friday morning until they shut it off right before I left. Go look at the updates I was posting in Breaking News on this. There was no possibly...no maybe or could be...ther WAS a cop killing bomb throwing Islamofascist terrorist on the loose in Watertown.
Amazing you defend your stand with a 10th Circuit Court ruling that set precedent, which I contend has nothing to do with this situation, yet still can't understand how this scenario that just happened, which you happen to agree with, doesn't also set precedent. "Hey look! A bank robber just ran into that neighborhood! There's a threat! Let's go door to door dragging people out of their house at gunpoint!".
T-Total bullshit.
How do you know there wasn't a "knock and annouce" warrant signed by a judge before all of this began?
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists.
Because you can't get a Damn "knock and announce" warrant for an entire neighborhood.
I'm surprised at just how many rights you're willing to forgo if the circumstances warrant it, circumstances that are ALWAYS subjective. Watertown isn't a combat zone. The "local commander" can't usurp an innocent person's constitutional rights, who isn't suspected of a damn thing, any time he/she sees fit.
And yet the law as I've stated and will continue to cite...along with cases that back up the exigent circumstances in this situation says you're wrong...no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
Show me the probable cause. I'll wait...
Police are swarming to a Watertown, MA neighborhood where suspect #2 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is believed to be cornered, and dozens of gunshots have been fired.
At least 20 to 30 shots rang out in the Boston suburb where police seem to have finally caught up with the 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect.
Police have been searching all day for Dzhokhar ever since the gun battle last night, also in Watertown ... in which his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot and killed.
According to TV reports ... Dzhokhar is still alive on a boat in a backyard, and surrounded by police.
Someone is wrong here, but it isn't me. Every damn case you mentioned was individual-based.
Except that they do in D.C. there are residential areas all around the Pentagon plus hi rise Apartment buildings and in NYC.
Interesting discussion back and forth.
Regardless the length and breadth of the banter, it'll be interesting to see whether or not the ambulance-chasing lawyers will take that video, identify the homes/residents who were rousted, and gin up a lawsuit against the city of Watertown/Boston.
Lawsuit in 3...2...1...
You said "Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood."
I included the cities of NYC and Washington DC based on your words, and excluded the suburbs for the same reason. I excluded the entire state of Pennsylvania to make the scenario manageable.
If you want, I'll rewrite my reply to include all suburbs and every jurisdiction in Pennsylvania responding and telling (ordering) the citizens to leave their homes and businesses and going into the streets (based on 'Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out"'), but I think that would be silly.
So the answer is you don't know. Got it.
And yet the law as I've stated and will continue to cite...along with cases that back up the exigent circumstances in this situation says you're wrong...no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
We hold that the initial warrantless search of the Smith "target" airplane at the Durango, Colorado, airport was a valid search conducted by Officers Haran and Olson based upon the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Thus, all subsequent seizures effected from the airplane were valid. We observe that none of the items seized pursuant to a search warrant on April 11, 1985, from Smith's residence and pickup truck were introduced in evidence at trial; thus, no prejudice resulted to Smith in terms of admission of fruit of an illegal search and seizure that day.
Officer Haran was legally upon the wing of the Smith aircraft when it was first detected parked at the Durango airport in order to determine whether it was occupied by smugglers who may have been armed and dangerous. Thus, the marijuana observed by Officer Haran within the cabin compartment was in "plain view." Objects within the plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in a position to have
They will and it will be an individual named in the case versus the U.S.
The same kind of case that Rebel claims isn't valid in what I'm citing.
Why would a lawsuit cite the US as a defendant when it was the city of Boston that conducted the searches? Makes no sense.
And based on my post just above, I agree with Rebel. The case you're citing isn't valid. It's apples and oranges, is a lawyer.
You're citing a court case -- US vs. Smith 1986 -- whose details and rationale aren't always clear.
Did you read the entire decision, TRG?
Here's the first couple of paragraphs from the 10th Circuit's opinion:
From the bolded above, what I'm gathering from it in this case is, there wasn't a warrant. Yet the officers had probable cause to search it because of marijuana seen in the cabin while the cop was legally on the wing of the aircraft. And yet none of the items seized from Smith's home and truck were even entered into trial, with or without a warrant.
Apples and oranges.
None of the cops could be certain that the bomber entered into ANY of the homes they rousted. Yet they chose to exhibit the blanket "one size fits all" methodology. That's a dangerous decision, but clearly one that the cop head shed made.
It's my bet they will suffer the consequences of that decision in the form of one or more lawsuits from those who were rousted out of their homes.
The cops couldn't be certain that the bomber had NOT entered any of the homes either.
Showing me a picture of a perp is "probable cause" to go door to door forcing people from their homes at gunpoint, while their homes are searched? Talk about a ****ing stretch, TRG.
Here you go, I just picked a random photo of a suspect off Yahoo. This guy is seen robbing a store. He's armed. He fled into the vicinity of ________ Neighborhood.
(http://media.katu.com/images/070704_burglary_suspect.jpg)
You've just argued that you have absolutely NO problem with teams of cops in MRAPS showing up armed to the teeth and forcing people at gunpoint from their homes while their homes are searched. Innocent people that have done nothing wrong.
Your compass on Constitutionality must be in the calibration shop, TRG.
Are you ****ing kidding me? That's your argument?
Now you're just being obtuse. And I'm not sure if it's on purpose or not.
You keep saying forced at gunpoint. You're being purposely dishonest. As I said before show me one picture where the people leaving their houses have a weapon aimed at them.
Oh and because it doesn't seem to register with you...SWAT teams are SUPPOSED to be armed to the teeth. Any other time you'd be stroiking yourself at your keyboard in the 2nd Amendment forum over all their awesome firepower and talking about how cool their gear is.
But because it serves your purpose suddenly..."armed to the teeth" SWAT teams are very bad.
:whatever:
No but your tinfoil hat is in need of adjustment/alignment. You're sounding like the nuts at DU.
No that's just the focus of your outrage at this moment. :lmao:
No, TRG, it is you that is sounding like the nuts at DU.
The ones that want conservatives and NRA members "rounded up" and their homes searched.
You've never once heard me support such unconstitutional tactics. Now, as to your opinion on the analogy about the perp I posted that just robbed a store, was armed, and fled into _________ neighborhood.
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES
Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).
Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F. 2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1993). The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id.
A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.
The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109. Section 3109 requires 'police officers [to] knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. Exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.' United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 830 (1991). Specifically, the court found that immediate entry was necessary 'for [the officers'] protection and the protection of others inside as well as to prevent the destruction of any drugs in defendant's possession or in the home.'
A simultaneous, no-refusal entry is permissible if at least 'mild exigent circumstances' were present. See United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1206 (9th Cir.) (en banc) (mild exigency is sufficient to justify simultaneous knock/announce and entry if entry does not require physical destruction of property), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984); United States v. Whitney, 633 F.2d 902, 909 (9th Cir.'80) ('only a mild indication of exigency is required to excuse noncompliance with the `refusal of admittance' requirement of section 3109'), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1004 (1981).
When police have a reasonable and sincere fear that someone is in jeopardy and contraband might be destroyed, this usually constitutes sufficient exigency to justify a simultaneous, no-refusal entry. See McConney, 728 F.2d at 1206; Whitney, 633 F.2d at 909-10.
Exigencies created by the government cannot be the basis for excusing compliance with the warrant requirement. See, e.g., United States v. Hackett, 638 F.2d 1179, 1183-85 (9th Cir.'80), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1001 (1981); United States v. Curran, 498 F.2d 30, 34 (9th Cir.'74). The rule has been applied only in cases where exigencies arose 'because of unreasonable and deliberate [conduct] by officers,' in which the officers ' consciously established the condition which the government now points to as an exigent circumstance.' See, e.g., Curran, 498 F.2d at 34 (emphasis added); Hackett, 638 F.2d at 1183; United States v. Calhoun, 542 F.2d 1094, 1102-03 (9th Cir.'76), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1064 (1977). an honest miscommunication is not a case where the government purposely tried to circumvent the requirements of section 3109. Cf. Hackett, 638 F.2d at 1184-85; Curran, 498 F.2d at 33-34.
Great debate. One thing is sure, if you had been bringing this up in DUmmieland, one of you would have been tombstoned by now for hurting the other's feelings and the other would have been issued this:
(just sayin' I'm Glad to be here!!)
Ummm...ok :whatever:
No, it just goes to show how far you will go to usurp a an innocent person's constitutional rights if some guy on the ground determines that they can't be sure if a suspect didn't enter into any of the homes. That's as asinine as saying, "we can't be sure people in this neighborhood aren't downloading child porn, so let's force them from their homes at gunpoint and search their computers".
I didn't even need to go to reductio to reach absurdum. Are you certain you want to use this scenario?
OK, so based solely on the scenario you provided: Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood.
It's September 11, 2001. Hijackers have taken over 4 airliners.
The Federal government knows (through unspecified means which violate the laws of space and time) that planes will strike unknown target or targets somewhere in the greater New York City metropolitan area, and somewhere in the greater Washington DC metropolitan area; and the passengers of one airliner will at some point in the immediate future fight back, and the plane will crash somewhere in the state of Pennsylvania.
The Federal government communicates this knowledge to the mayors of all affected cities, and the governor of Pennsylvania, who send the police out.
Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out".
The government can only do two things: Ask the people to leave their homes and businesses (with the option to say "no"), or order them to do so (with the force of the government behind that order, including the power to arrest or use deadly force). Since you used the words telling people to "get out", asking is not on the table.
So, the mayors and Governor identify "most likely" targets, and direct their law enforcement agencies to order evacuation of neighborhoods and particular buildings, based on their assessment of "most likely" targets, but nothing more specific.
A citizen refuses to evacuate: what then? If the police shoot him, arrest him, or forcibly remove him based only on the scenario you provided, they have violated his civil rights.
Rachel Bâ€@RaediantPhoenix
SWAT's exact words: "have you seen anything unusual? Are there any areas of your home ud like us 2 search?" I said no thx. They went away.
Yeah it would have been me for daring to challenging the hysterical group think and posting factual information instead of emotional knee jerk responses.
We can play the what if game all day if you want to continue to avoid reality of what I've been posting about where the 4th Amendment wasn't violated.
Whatever you want to do.
Aaaand here's the point where you're losing the debate because your emotional outrage doesn't stand up to reality and factual information so you move the goalposts.
Fail.
When they're taking out a terrorist; not when they're unconstitutionally forcing innocent people from their homes. Try again.
No, it just goes to show how far you will go to usurp a an innocent person's constitutional rights if some guy on the ground determines that they can't be sure if a suspect didn't enter into any of the homes. That's as asinine as saying, "we can't be sure people in this neighborhood aren't downloading child porn, so let's force them from their homes at gunpoint and search their computers".
I'm losing the debate and getting emotional? You called me an idiot. Who's the one getting emotional?
You never even had an up on the debate.
Exactly where is this guys 4th Amendment rights being violated?
[youtube=425,350]2LrbsUVSVl8[/youtube]
BTW, this isn't getting emotional; this is a damn good analogy, one that you, by your own admission, wouldn't have a problem with. You've already set precedent in your thinking. Oh, you don't agree with this? Too late. You've already ceded the authority to the head LEO on the ground. What you "think" doesn't matter. "Drag those innocent people out and search those homes!"
What factual information? Searching an entire neighborhood and forcing people from their homes at gunpoint isn't an exigent circumstance. An exigent circumstance is "we saw the perp run into this home. We don't have a warrant, but we have strong suspicions that he's still there". Not, "we saw him run into this home, let's act like Nazis (yes, the **** I did invoke Godwin) and search ALL homes, remove the occupants at gunpoint, and search their homes with no warrant or due process".
In case "someone" forgot what the topic was about.
Tell you what...show me black letter case law to proive your point
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
You can't do it.
More than that:
The police had no knowledge that the suspect was within their perimeter (he was not).
The police had no knowledge that the suspect was within any particular house or other building within that perimeter (he was not).
The police had no knowledge that any person within the perimeter who was removed from his home was a threat (there has been no evidence or statement that they were).
And, because the police "believed" the suspect was in the area, removing residents from their homes while being searched would have placed them in greater danger than remaining in their homes would have.
Fortunately for those good citizens, the police were protecting them with rifles while they were out in the open....no, wait.
The police have no affirmative responsibility to protect the public at large, per the US Supreme Court.
Oops. Looks like the police were willing to sacrifice some citizens for their own safety.
Says the guy who moved the goal posts.
And before you say "same goes for you"...I've been posting evidence to show the LEO's were polite asking if they could come in and if any place needed to be searched.
Case law? I'll just pull out my trump card.
Done.
What would have happened had that homeowner refused to leave his home? Would the police have had a right to force him out without a warrant?
If that's your "trump card"...you suck at poker.
All you've done is show that you don't have a damn leg to stand on.
Thanks for confimring what you pretty much proved in your opening tantrum of this thread...you're ranting and bitching and moaning from an emotional knee jerk reactive level with no facts or case law to back up what you're whinging about.
When?
The video is there. If that's "polite", I'd hate to see the asshole side of those LEOs.
The Constitution doesn't matter? Wow.
You have not once, ONCE shown where an exigent circumstance existed that warranted going door to door
forcibly removing homeowners from their homes and searching their homes.
Sorry, "well, they can't prove he isn't in there either" isn't a ****ing argument.
I think it's safe to assume they'd be thrown to the ground on their stomachs and zip-tied for "the public safety" and for "obstruction of 'justice'". Something TRG apparently has no problem with.
Link? Surely you've got some relavent news article that backs that up right?
Wait...they did something else...what's it called..hang on I'll remember...oh yeah they had the residents shelter in place.
And yet there they were...doing just that.
Right because your OPINION trums reality because it happens to justify your stance on this. :whatever:
Well given your attitude about what they were doing...if you'd been there you probably would have.
I think it's safe to assume they'd be thrown to the ground on their stomachs and zip-tied for "the public safety" and for "obstruction of 'justice'". Something TRG apparently has no problem with.
And yet I did. Not my fault you refuse to see the truth that's before you.
Oh yeah...if you did that it would totally ruin your tinfoil rant.
Still waiting to see where people were dragged violently from their homes.
For not wanting them to force me from MY home and forcing their way into my house with no warrant and with the intent of searching my home when I haven't done a damn thing? Remind me of your oath, TRG, the one I also took a few times. Sworn to uphold and defend the what?
You wanna wag your finger in disdain at them and remind THEM about the oath they took?
No, TRG, you didn't. You never once showed any evidence of an exigent circumstance that would allow this to happen to an entire neighborhood.
Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).
If you're going to go that sleazy route, make sure your jackboots are laced up correctly.
They violated that oath.
Sleazy? That's rich coming from the armchair QB trying to remind ME of my oath.
BTW, when did I start looking at the wrong people as the enemy? You see me defending the bombers? Saying they weren't the enemy? NO, but just because they're trying to find the second bomber, doesn't mean I have to give up MY 4th amendment right to be secure in my own home and it damn sure doesn't give them the right to suspend my rights because they can't rule out that the second guy isn't in numerous homes in an entire neighborhood.
I'm the armchair QB? Tell me, TRG, when and where did you get your law degree?
I took the same damn oath a few times myself. I'm not the one arguing that it's OK to violate that oath if a suspected terrorist fled to a neighborhood.
Meanwhile, others say the police did what they had to do. Another comment came from Catherine Bartolomucci who works at the Boston Children's Hospital: "They did not conduct these raids (in the manner shown in this video) for every house….only on tips. Many residents called if they heard noises in the basement, saw blood outside, etc…in which case they responded as one should given this man was a terrorist who was likely armed with explosives. I have not heard any complaint of the status of any raid from fellow Watertown residents… only from those whose houses did not get searched, and wished they had."
[youtube=425,350]4nrkcUV_7Qk[/youtube]
Well that is exactly what it looked like when you watch the entire tape. One house picked for whatever reason.
Exigent Circumstances (http://le.alcoda.org/publications/point_of_view/files/exigent_circumstances.pdf)
LOL! Won't do you any good with Rebel. I showed him that too and he said there was nothing going on in Watertown that justified using exigent cuircumstances.
In your opinion. I cited the relevant part of the ruling as it applies to what we're talking about here.
Don't see it happening.
What they did will stand up in court IF it is challenged.
Sad what a supposed free people will accept as the norm for the sake of security.
That's just the point, TRG. The ruling ISN'T relevant to what happened in Watertown. An airplane on the ground in which it was suspected that armed people might be in, and then in the process of determining that, an LEO observed what appeared to be marijuana in the airplane's cabin. That does not equate in any way to what happened in Watertown when an entire NEIGHBORHOOD was rousted because of what the LEOs thought were a dangerous criminal being afforded sanctuary in one of those houses.
As if the occupants wouldn't know it. :lmao:
Any LEO with half a brain could instantly determine if a homeowner was hiding something/someone or not. The sight of all those uniforms with all those weapons tends to be very intimidating -- the very essence of terror.
Okay, you don't see it happening. But that doesn't mean it won't. There are PLENTY of hungry lawyers out there. Time will tell whether or not some hungry lawyer will convince one of those rousted people that their 4th Amendment rights were shitcanned down the toilet.
In your opinion.
BTW, that's not the only house that was searched like that. Hate to burst your bubble, FL. I've posted one video. You apparently didn't believe that one, so I won't waste my time posting other videos like a guy in a house that opened his window and had a LEO behind a turret aim at him and yell at him to close his window.
Exactly where is this guys 4th Amendment rights being violated?
(http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/watertown-search_4-620x413.jpg)
Members of a police SWAT team talk to a man while conducting a door-to-door search for 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev on April 19, 2013 in Watertown, Massachusetts. After a car chase and shoot out with police, one suspect in the Boston Marathon bombing, Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26, was shot and killed by police early morning April 19, and a manhunt is underway for his brother and second suspect, 19-year-old Dzhokhar A. Tsarnaev. The two men are suspects in the bombings at the Boston Marathon on April 15, that killed three people and wounded at least 170. (Photo: Spencer Platt/Getty Images)
A Watertown resident and Boston Globe employee was at home when the SWAT team knocked on her door. Food editor Sheryl Julian described the interaction:
“The SWAT team knocked on every door,†Julian said. “They came in but they didn’t go through the house. We told them we had been through the basement. They went through the garage, in every bush, the whole team, rifles poised, through every single inch of this neighborhood. And every single inch of our house outside.â€
They were very calm, just having a conversation when they came to the door.
“They asked, ‘Have you seen anyone? Have you checked around? Very polite.’â€
They were going from door to door.
And then, just as quickly, they were gone.
“It was very quiet.â€
Oh I see.
Pay no attention to the IEDs on the road kids...
SCOTUS uphold exigent circumstances cause the cops smelled pot.....
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/supreme_court_upholds_exigent-circumstances_search_of_apartment_that_smelle/
Oh I see.
Pay no attention to the IEDs on the road kids...
Let's roust the neighborhood. Even the screaming children.
Not to mention the pets!
(http://static.infowars.com/2013/04/i/general/bpd422.jpg)
I'll be honest. I'm finding this debate fascinating.
Swear to God I'm not stirring shit with this next question:
How come the guy taking the video wasn't rousted from his house?
I can definitely see both sides of this argument. It has been going on since the Civil War.
There has to be more to it than what we see on that video.
Not to mention the pets!
(http://static.infowars.com/2013/04/i/general/bpd422.jpg)
See the bag of Cheesy Poofs and half a bottle of wine on the coffee table?
I bet there's a bag of weed under the couch cushion!
"OK, Mr. Jingles, just be cool...be cool. Giggle, giggle."
The tipoff is the color purple.
Who buys a purple couch?
Dopesmokers, that's who! (Terrorist Kitty keeps mistaking the weed for catnip, though, which is a huge problem.)
Not to mention the pets!
(http://static.infowars.com/2013/04/i/general/bpd422.jpg)
In your opinion.
The tipoff is the color purple.
Who buys a purple couch?
Dopesmokers, that's who! (Terrorist Kitty keeps mistaking the weed for catnip, though, which is a huge problem.)
The two critters built a grand total of five bombs, two of which were exploded at the marathon, one of the street during the firefight in which the elder brother was gunned down, and two others.
Low grade explosives.
Wow.
Let's roust the neighborhood. Even the screaming children.
You keep bringing that up as justification to shut down the entire city.
How many of those IEDs were recovered on the road in East Boston, South Boston, Chelsea, Revere, or Quincy? All of those neighborhoods werelocked down"voluntarily" sheltered in place, and public transportation in those unaffected areas was shut down too.
How about the small businessmen who counted on public transit for his employees to come to work in an unaffected part of the metropolitan area? Their closing was hardly "voluntary".
I'll be honest. I'm finding this debate fascinating.
Swear to God I'm not stirring shit with this next question:
How come the guy taking the video wasn't rousted from his house?
I can definitely see both sides of this argument. It has been going on since the Civil War.
There has to be more to it than what we see on that video.
So yo'd rather people fill those high traffic areas? Talk about a target rich environment for terrorists.
No one said the shut down of the MBTA was voluntary.
Something you seem to care nothing about in some misguided defense of the 4th Amendment.
It's like you're saying...yeah people got blown up...couple kids died in the cross fire between the cops and the terrorist...but hey...at least I didn't see any violations of the 4th Amendment.
:whatever:
As a wise man once said, "Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither."
formerlurker said thelockdown"shelter in place" was voluntary. I pointed out that shutting down public transit all over the city created an involuntary shutdown for small business owners in areas far removed from the manhunt, because their employees could not get to work.
I've never found defending the 4th Amendment, nor any other part of the Constitution, to be misguided.
I'm hardheaded that way.
"If ye love wealth better than liberty,
the tranquility of servitude
better than the animating contest of freedom,
go home from us in peace.
We ask not your counsels or your arms.
Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you.
May your chains set lightly upon you,
and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
-Samuel Adams
It's like I'm saying, "As soon as our government ignores the Constitution and curtails our liberty in response to a terrorist threat, the terrorists have won."
Or, it's like I am saying, "The bad guys won this round, and the next batch of bad guys now know how to bring a city to a standstill."
Or maybe, it's like I am saying, "Some of us refuse to live in fear of terrorists OR our 'benevolent' government."
Don't put words in my mouth, and I won't put words in yours. Since I know what I'm saying, and it is at least one of these, you can take your pick.
formerlurker said the lockdown "shelter in place" was voluntary. I pointed out that shutting down public transit all over the city created an involuntary shutdown for small business owners in areas far removed from the manhunt, because their employees could not get to work.
Re: BREAKING: MIT under siege, officer shot, police turn off cellphones ...
« Reply #40 on: April 19, 2013, 10:04:32 »
Quote
Reverse 911 emergency calls have gone out to people in surrounding towns (Cambridge, Watertown, others I would imagine) and we have been told to stay home. No public transport. I could walk to work but that's closed too. Hopefully no one else will get hurt.
If you won't take my word for it...perhaps you can take it up with someone who was in the middle of the search area. One of our own members redwhit:
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php/topic,86226.0/msg,1070445.html
The communities were getting reverse 911 calls with instructions on what to do. Guess that's another hole in your eeeevil gubmint theory huh?
Applying that quote to this situation...is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen posted here.
Cite all the flowery poetry from one of the FF's you like. How is that going to be any comfort if you're dead because YOU think that YOU know the 4th Amendment better than law enforcement officer? I'm sure your family and friends will be comforted by the words of Sam Adams.
TRG, the hostility and badmouthing to Big Dog is really uncalled for. Now, Big Dog's a Big Dog and he can take care of himself just fine, but your personal attacks are beneath you. I don't know of anybody who's hysterically ranting about any of this but you. Well, okay, maybe Reb. :lmao:
That said, we've all been speculating. We all are tossing out our own interpretations of court cases, the 4th Amendment, and we're drawing our own conclusions about lots of things. With the exception of DAT, I don't know of any lawyers on this board, so all of these interpretations really should be taken with a grain of salt.
LEOs might be closer to the law than any of us are, but the fact is, they are not in a position to interpret the law. That's a job for the courts. The LEO, as you know, merely enforces that law.
From my POV, I am NOT willing to give law enforcement a free pass. Somebody at the highest levels in Boston -- and I'm wagering that it's either Deval Patrick or the mayor -- gave the cops the green light to roust out the areas that were rousted. And yes, before you ask, I read the thread last Friday. And I've followed up to the extent that I my schedule allows.
So for one, I'm content to let the ambulance chasers -- if they're hungry enough -- have at it. Let's see where, when and how the lawyers start lining up to talk with those people who were rousted then, when all that's done, let's see how the courts handle this -- or don't.
We're not going to change each other's minds, and that's fine. Spirited discussion is also fine, but I'd hope we can step away from the ad hominem attacks. They really do detract from the debate.
And smelling pot is analogous to a fleeing critter exactly how?
You keep bringing that up as justification to shut down the entire city.
How many of those IEDs were recovered on the road in East Boston, South Boston, Chelsea, Revere, or Quincy? All of those neighborhoods werelocked down"voluntarily" sheltered in place, and public transportation in those unaffected areas was shut down too.
How about the small businessmen who counted on public transit for his employees to come to work in an unaffected part of the metropolitan area? Their closing was hardly "voluntary".
Actually, you just made my point for me.
"We have been told to stay home" is not the same as "voluntary shelter in place".
Oops.
I see going this way at my house.
Knock, knock Mr Cats we want to search you house.
There aint no ****in terrorist in this house, if there was he would be in a bloody heap and I would call you. Now go away and leave me alone I don't need your protection.
And this is when they go ape shit on me and pull me out at gun point and trash my house.
Aside from the hysterical rantings of Alex Jones, I am missing the outcry from the people who live in the perimeter affected.
Perhaps I missed it. Anyone have a link?
Sheeple are everywhere, especially in the People's Republik of Massholistan. :-)
Aside from the hysterical rantings of Alex Jones, I am missing the outcry from the people who live in the perimeter affected.
Perhaps I missed it. Anyone have a link?
Cabs were working, and you know - you could drive. People actually own cars here.
Again, people asked how can we help? They cooperated.
God help whatever ****ed up town you live in if this happens there. Lord what a bunch of jackass videos there will be to cringe at.
So when, exactly, did the founding principles of our country stop applying?
TRG, the hostility and badmouthing to Big Dog is really uncalled for. Now, Big Dog's a Big Dog and he can take care of himself just fine, but your personal attacks are beneath you. I don't know of anybody who's hysterically ranting about any of this but you. Well, okay, maybe Reb. :lmao:
LEOs might be closer to the law than any of us are, but the fact is, they are not in a position to interpret the law. That's a job for the courts. The LEO, as you know, merely enforces that law.
From my POV, I am NOT willing to give law enforcement a free pass.
Somebody at the highest levels in Boston -- and I'm wagering that it's either Deval Patrick or the mayor -- gave the cops the green light to roust out the areas that were rousted. And yes, before you ask, I read the thread last Friday. And I've followed up to the extent that I my schedule allows.
So for one, I'm content to let the ambulance chasers -- if they're hungry enough -- have at it. Let's see where, when and how the lawyers start lining up to talk with those people who were rousted then, when all that's done, let's see how the courts handle this -- or don't.
We're not going to change each other's minds, and that's fine. Spirited discussion is also fine, but I'd hope we can step away from the ad hominem attacks. They really do detract from the debate.
Sheep may bleat when they are being shorn, but they quiet down when the sheepherder releases their legs.Who's the bigger sheep...the people in Boston or the ones who blindly follow blatant mis-readings of an amendment in a misguided interpretation of "Constitutional Liberty"?
Baa.
Looks to me like you are willing to sacrifice principles for safety, txradioguy. May your chains rest lightly upon you.
What will you do, Sergeant?
I was going to suggest moving it to the fight forum.
Again, people asked how can we help? They cooperated.
God help whatever ****ed up town you live in if this happens there. Lord what a bunch of jackass videos there will be to cringe at.
I guess some here would add redwhit to the list of "sheeple" as well since he's just one of those faux Conservatives like you and me and actually complied with what the cops were telling him to do.
My home is my castle and if the police forced their way into my house without permission or a warrant,
I would be some pissed. Watching that video where guns were pointed at the people in there does not LOOK constitutional to me.
There could be a lawsuit and I do not know whether their rights were violated or not. Plus, it would not be the first time the government acted in an unlawful manner.
And in the end, it wasn't even necessary. Dude goes out for a smoke, and notices his boat cover's ****ed up. Calls the right people.
Do you think anything will come of this?
Sorry I don't have time for stupid.
They're wrong in their mis interpretation of the 4th Amendment in this situation and that's all there is to it.
*yawn*
GFYS. And I mean that sincerely.
Nothing Alex...errr...Big Dog because 1) The Posse Comitatus Act would prevent that. 2) I would refuse an unlawful order and 3) If someone was still insisting I obey an unlawful order in violation of UCMJ and US Code I'd tell them to either arrest me or watch me as I walked away.
What?...I'm sorry...did that ruin your little "gotcha" moment...where you would beat your chest and show everyone how my response PROVES that you and Reb are the REAL conservatives?
Oh and it's Sgt. 1st Class. Get that shit straight before you EVER try to use my rank against me got that asswipe?
Now go play your retarded Black Helicopter Alex Jones Info Wars bullshit with the other conspiracy freaks...I'm done with your stupidity.
You know I heard this meme floated all day yesterday and I still haven't see one image of a cop city state or federal with their weapon leveled at someone with their finger on the trigger like Reb and Big Dog have led people to believe.
You have not looked at that video closely then. The cop on the right hand of the sidewalk has his rifle pointed at everyone that walks out the front door and as they pass him he lowers it. The swat team on the roof had their rifles pointed at them also. No, they did not have a weapon two inches from their face like the Gonzales kid but having a cop pointing their weapon at you from 30' would not please me anymore than having it stuck in my face. You need to look at the video again.
*yawn*
GFYS. And I mean that sincerely.
Nothing Alex...errr...Big Dog because 1) The Posse Comitatus Act would prevent that. 2) I would refuse an unlawful order and 3) If someone was still insisting I obey an unlawful order in violation of UCMJ and US Code I'd tell them to either arrest me or watch me as I walked away.
What?...I'm sorry...did that ruin your little "gotcha" moment...where you would beat your chest and show everyone how my response PROVES that you and Reb are the REAL conservatives?
Oh and it's Sgt. 1st Class. Get that shit straight before you EVER try to use my rank against me got that asswipe?
Now go play your retarded Black Helicopter Alex Jones Info Wars bullshit with the other conspiracy freaks...I'm done with your stupidity.
I think it was a pretty good analogy.
The analogy is one where you've essentially already given the guys on the ground the precedent to do exactly what Bigdog laid out.[
Nice try pulling rank,
Funny, I don't remember walking around calling all Sergeants First Class "Sergeant First Class So and So".
He wasn't disparaging your rank;
Looked at the video several times. 8shrugs* maybe it's because I'm in the military and that's how we do things too...didn't see anything that in any way involved the people with the weapons using them in a threatening or menacing manner against any fo the civilians.
Umm no...to quote Big Dog from yesterday "apples and oranges".
He was saying it in a disrespectful way...channeling Dennis Hopper from "Speed". Otherwise there wouldn't have been the bolded lettering.
I didn't say "apples and oranges", so you're not quoting me; and I never saw Speed, so I don't know what Dennis Hopper said or did.
Now you're just chasing your own tail.
Rose told the Wire, the ACLU is working to “get facts on the ground of what really happened.â€
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/23/ready-how-watertown-door-to-door-search-for-bombing-suspects-did-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/#
Speaking of batshit crazy ... it's rather pathetic when members here rush to total know-it-all judgment with little to no facts, when the ACLU won't even go there.
Yeah, we would like to hear from those whose houses were actually searched, cause the only complaints we are getting are from those whose houses weren't search. Priceless.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/04/23/ready-how-watertown-door-to-door-search-for-bombing-suspects-did-not-violate-the-fourth-amendment/#
Speaking of batshit crazy ... it's rather pathetic when members here rush to total know-it-all judgment with little to no facts, when the ACLU won't even go there.
Yeah, we would like to hear from those whose houses were actually searched, cause the only complaints we are getting are from those whose houses weren't search. Priceless.
“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,†says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’â€
The “shelter in place†request is legally different from a state of emergency, which Patrick declared earlier this year as winter storm Nemo descended on the Bay State. Patrick imposed a travel ban, threatening a penalty of up to a year in prison and a large fine if people were found on the roads. Massachusetts suffered very few fatalities during the storm.
When it came to keeping the public off the streets on Friday, an order, it seems, wasn’t needed. “When the governor suggested in light of last night’s events that we have an armed subject on the loose who is very dangerous, who has committed murder, I believe the citizens of the commonwealth, in the hopes of helping law enforcement, voluntarily stayed off the streets,†Massachusetts State Trooper Todd Nolan told TIME. “This is a request that the public stay inside and they are adhering to it. There has been no law mentioned or any idea that if you went outside you’d be arrested.â€
Legal experts agree that the request has been effective. “If there’s a person running around with explosives in a major population center, it wouldn’t be that surprising that the response of authorities would be to ask people to not be outside,†says David Barron, a professor of public law at Harvard Law School. The heightened risk to the public, given the violence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is already alleged to have inflicted, made officials feel the shelter in place request was necessary, but such measures might not be the standard response to every future terrorism manhunt. “If the idea is somehow that the model for how to respond–when there’s any kind of suspect on the loose related to terrorism, they’ll be telling a place to be completely shut down–that seems not at all likely,†Barron says.
Even if Patrick had felt an order was necessary, or if the situation continues, the Massachusetts state constitution empowers Patrick to take steps to ensure the public’s safety. “A state’s chief executive has ample inherent power to prevent carnage,†Harvard Law School professor and constitutional expert Laurence Tribe told TIME in an email. All steps that Patrick has taken so far, Tribe explained, appear to fully comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.
:lmao:
I love it when you get pissed. Your sarcasm is truly original.
The lawyers, like the good, observant buzzards they are, are still circling, looking for easy pickings. :-)
I sure as hell am glad I don't live in the People's Republik of Massholistan.
Must suck to live in a world when the only one that matters is the person in the mirror. Those who serve make tremendous sacrifices for others - so incredibly selfless and giving. A concept that seems to have eluded you.
Must suck to live in a world where your idea of "liberty" and "defiance of terrorism" means "hide under your bed and hope the government protects you".
Since yourlockdownshelter in place was completely voluntary, you can't even blame your Dem governor for ordering you inside. You chose to hide.
Baa.
Police were continually screaming “don’t look out the window!†during their sweep in Watertown last week. This photo shows what happens to folks who disobeyed that order.
Alec · 2 days ago
I live in the greater Boston area and there are a lot of people around here who love the government (as long as a democrat is in power) and everything it does, and they do not see any issue with this sort of thing. They think as long as Obama or some other lefty does it and says it's for our own good then it's justified.
The fawning over the military and police at the beginning of Saturday's Red Sox game was disgusting and made me feel very uneasy.
I hope the tide is turning with more people distrusting the government but I don't think I see it myself around here at least.
(http://jimbovard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/watertown-gun-aimed-at-photogrphaer-923495_10200611106256641_1972215990_n-800x706.jpg)
I can't see to locate any outrage from those affected. Surely one person - even the folks in the video would come forward. Nope.
Reminds me of the folks who live near a reserve base in Western MA that was used as a hub for returning planes from the first desert storm. The planes were coming in 24 hours a day, and those folks were pissed their "rights" were being violated. They believed they had a right to noise free sleep. They filed complaints while pounding their chest over those rights.
The local newspaper published their names. The complaints stopped immediately.
Planes carrying military personnel who performed their duty to our country and just wanted to get home. The folks of Watertown, Boston, Cambridge etc. just wanted to cooperate and get this asshole caught and you have the absolute nerve and audacity to snicker at them as fools.
Must suck to live in a world when the only one that matters is the person in the mirror. Those who serve make tremendous sacrifices for others - so incredibly selfless and giving. A concept that seems to have eluded you.
No you were probably too busy running them down behind their back because you thought youwere smarter than them and they didn't know what the hell they were doing.
Must suck to live in a world when the only one that matters is the person in the mirror. Those who serve make tremendous sacrifices for others - so incredibly selfless and giving. A concept that seems to have eluded you.
Eupher is retired Army, are you sure you want to start flinging this across the room?
Western Degradation
THANK YOU GESTAPO! For forcing us to stay inside our houses while coming in them with no probable cause or search warrant while having the city loose 300 million is lost revenue but it's all worth it. Our safety is worth all the freedoms and that evil constitution any day.
Like · · on Sunday
4 people like this.
Western Degradation Isn't it ironic that when you released the curfew the citizens found the guy and not you? Those of us who are awake know you used a litmus test on the people to see how they would react to martial law.
April 21 at 4:22pm · Edited · Like · 5
Ez Freehill ^haha - true.
April 21 at 2:03pm · Edited · Like · 1
Aaron Gravitytoy
The 4th was obviously nowhere to be found, but while pointing guns at innocent citizens for 2 days, did any of you ponder the definition of "terror"?
on Sunday
Britt R. Coleman
You should change the name of this profile to "Massachusetts Police State".
on Sunday
Lindsey Coleman likes this.
Justin Clendenin
Way to go 10000 people took down one 19 year old. Fantastic job. 4th amendment ?
on Sunday
A police officer, riding in a military vehicle, pointing a rifle directly at an unarmed civilian inside a home.
Welcome to Massachusetts, cradle of American liberty.
Or State of overreaction..........what rights again ? :shrug:
formerlurker,
If the state has a contest for a new tourism campaign, you can use this:WELCOME TO MASSACHUSETTS
(http://jimbovard.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/watertown-gun-aimed-at-photogrphaer-923495_10200611106256641_1972215990_n-800x706.jpg)
LIVE FREE, AND DIE.
Interesting thread over all. Some minor insults tossed around, but to be expected on an issue such as this.
Personally, I think the cops violated the hell out of the 4th Amendment, court precedents or not.
Ya see... The Constitution was written in simple every day language of the day. It took lawyers with an agenda to try to complicate the hell out of it.
I don't need a lawyer or a court to define for myself what the Constitution says. I can read. Additionally, I can draw on the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers to help me discern what the original intent of the Founding Fathers was.
IMO, this was a clear and demonstrable violation of the intent of the 4th Amendment. I bet our Founding Fathers are turning over in their graves over the pure and simple abuses of basic rights that we have allowed our "government" to impose on sovereign citizens that have committed no wrong.
Extreme violation of the 4th. All while the Obeezy Admin gives this turd burger his Miranda rights, free healthcare, etc, etc on our dime.
HE'S an enemy combatant, but our citizens aren't!!
Oh, and the spat with FL may have caused her to flee or something. Haven't seen her post in a couple days...
With such a heated issue though, there are bound to be very heavy disagreements.
Must suck to live in a world where your idea of "liberty" and "defiance of terrorism" means "hide under your bed and hope the government protects you".
Since yourlockdownshelter in place was completely voluntary, you can't even blame your Dem governor for ordering you inside. You chose to hide.
Baa.
Extreme violation of the 4th. All while the Obeezy Admin gives this turd burger his Miranda rights, free healthcare, etc, etc on our dime.
HE'S an enemy combatant, but our citizens aren't!!
Oh, and the spat with FL may have caused her to flee or something. Haven't seen her post in a couple days...
With such a heated issue though, there are bound to be very heavy disagreements.
Of course you can read, Rich, that part isn't in question. But it is the determined and lawful jurisprudence of the judicial branch of our government to actually interpret the Constitution.
This is why I said earlier in this thread that it will be very interesting to see what kind of lawsuits that might come out of this very real threat to the 4th Amendment. Some lawyer or lawyers are going to question what was done and put it in front of a court for that court's interpretation of how that action did or did not violate the 4th Amendment or any other law on the books.
In my opinion , doing what they did, locking down, asking people to stay in their home, and searches were totallly over the rim, for the whole of Boston. I mean, this guy's photo was all over the internet, somebody would have turned him in. He would have gotten hungry, his cell phone would have run out of charge. I refuse to live in a shoebox, because some little shit!! If I have to get a firearm, I will!!
I contend that many of the problems concerning civil liberties and the governments usurpation of power not granted to it, is a direct result of liberal judges and yes even Supreme Court justices trying to "interpret" the Constitution instead of just reading it with an eye towards original intent. IMO their job isn't to interpret the document. They should be interpreting the law as written to see if the legislation conflicts with the very simple wording and meaning of the Constitution.
As I have already stated, the Constitution was written in the simple language of the day. I am of the belief that our founders wrote it that way on purpose. I believe they wanted it to be easily understood by the common laymen.
I find it very disconcerting that some SCOTUS justices have gone so far as to reference other country's laws when ruling on the Constitutionality of our own legislation.
I am sure that some may disagree and that is fine. But these are my beliefs and I don't see them changing anytime soon.
I contend that many of the problems concerning civil liberties and the governments usurpation of power not granted to it, is a direct result of liberal judges and yes even Supreme Court justices trying to "interpret" the Constitution instead of just reading it with an eye towards original intent. IMO their job isn't to interpret the document. They should be interpreting the law as written to see if the legislation conflicts with the very simple wording and meaning of the Constitution.
As I have already stated, the Constitution was written in the simple language of the day. I am of the belief that our founders wrote it that way on purpose. I believe they wanted it to be easily understood by the common laymen.
I find it very disconcerting that some SCOTUS justices have gone so far as to reference other country's laws when ruling on the Constitutionality of our own legislation.
I am sure that some may disagree and that is fine. But these are my beliefs and I don't see them changing anytime soon.
I see NOTHING to disagree with sir. :usflag:
The dumb shits even clapped for the cops.
I seriously doubt that this door to door search would have happened in a rich neighborhoods or God forbid in a Muslim community. No frigging way. I still think Obummer and Homeland security was just itching to see if they could pull off a military operation like this in city full of liberal softies. They got their answer that is okay to stomp on citizens rights. The dumb shits even clapped for the cops. The use of brute military style force by the police was something I would expect to see in a commie country but not here. Even if they had permission from each homeowner, the sorry bastards did not have the right to point rifles at civilians that had no weapons and posed no threat. Anyone that says that they did not drawn down on civilians is either FOS or needs glasses. I hope those that got the shit scared out of them file lawsuits.
That was really out of line. Than again leftists want the government to do everything for them.
That was really out of line. Than again leftists want the government to do everything for them.
:hyper:
FL doesn't flee from anything, Rev. I'm sure she's busy IRL.
She never came back.
Holy Necroposting Batman! :whatever: