COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!

[txradioguy]

In case "someone" forgot what the topic was about.

Says the guy who moved the goal posts.


BTW were you there...did you hear the conversations the cops had with the people?

Nope and neither was I.  So your assumption that the people weren't agreeable to everything we see in those video's means jacksh*t.

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.

Got anything to the contrary?

Yeah...that's what I thought.

[Rebel]

Tell you what...show me black letter case law to proive your point

Case law? I'll just pull out my trump card.

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.

Done.

[txradioguy]

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).

Link?  Surely you've got some relavent news article that backs that up right?

Right?

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.

And you know this how?

Fortunately for those good citizens, the police were protecting them with rifles while they were out in the open....no, wait.

Wait...they did something else...what's it called..hang on I'll remember...oh yeah they had the residents shelter in place.

The police have no affirmative responsibility to protect the public at large, per the US Supreme Court.

And yet there they were...doing just that.

Oops. Looks like the police were willing to sacrifice some citizens for their own safety.

Right because your OPINION trums reality because it happens to justify your stance on this.  

[Rebel]

Says the guy who moved the goal posts.

When?

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.

The video is there. If that's "polite", I'd hate to see the asshole side of those LEOs.

[Splashdown]

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?

[txradioguy]

Case law? I'll just pull out my trump card.

If that's your "trump card"...you suck at poker.

Done.

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.

[Rebel]

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?

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.

[Rebel]

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.

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.

[txradioguy]

When?

"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".

The video is there. If that's "polite", I'd hate to see the asshole side of those LEOs.

Well given your attitude about what they were doing...if you'd been there you probably would have.

[txradioguy]

The Constitution doesn't matter? Wow.

Never said that.  Again that's your words.  Use them for yourself and quit trying to attribut them to me.

You have not once, ONCE shown where an exigent circumstance existed that warranted going door to door

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.

forcibly removing homeowners from their homes and searching their homes.

Still waiting to see where people were dragged violently from their homes.

Sorry, "well, they can't prove he isn't in there either" isn't a ****ing argument.

It is for the law and it is for thr courts.  Don't like it...run for ****ing congress and change the law.

Ok keep spitting into the wind Don Quixote...your choice.

[txradioguy]

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.

You know what...there was a time when you'd actually engage in intelligent debate.  Now you're just being lazy and taking teh DU way out.

What a ****ing disappointment that is.  Especially from you.

[Big Dog]

Link?  Surely you've got some relavent news article that backs that up right?

Well, he wasn't within their perimeter. That pretty much covers it.

Wait...they did something else...what's it called..hang on I'll remember...oh yeah they had the residents shelter in place.

Right up to the point they walked those residents out into the street with their hands on their heads.

And yet there they were...doing just that.

Were they? The guy with his hands on his head, surrounded by officers with rifles, may not think so. I may have missed a police officer off-camera, enticing that man down the street with an ice cream cone.

Personally, I'd be much more secure in my home (to get back that pesky old Constitution), than out in the open with my hands on my head, with an armed suspect running around; and officers who couldn't tell the difference between a blond guy in his own home, and a dark haired guy with guns and bombs. (Damn, what a run on sentence!)

But that's just me.

Right because your OPINION trums reality because it happens to justify your stance on this.  

In fact, my opinion pretty much does trump someone else's version of reality, particularly if that someone's scenario required the federal government to violate the laws of space and time in order to work.

[Rebel]

Well given your attitude about what they were doing...if you'd been there you probably would have.

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?

[Firekrakka]

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.

Oh you know it.

[Rebel]

And yet I did.  Not my fault you refuse to see the truth that's before you.

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.

Oh yeah...if you did that it would totally ruin your tinfoil rant.

If you're going to go that sleazy route, make sure your jackboots are laced up correctly.

Still waiting to see where people were dragged violently from their homes.

I posted the video in the introductory post and reposted it on the second page. I'm not watching the damn thing for you.

[txradioguy]

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?

The Constitution.  Against enemies foreign and doimestic.

And that's exactly what I'm doing and will continue to do. 

What I won't do is become unhinged from reality like you are.

Your problem is you're looking at the wrong people here as the enemy.  How many of those SWAT team members you're disparaging for doing their job wore a uniform too?  Or the FBI Tactical guys that were on scene?

You wanna wag your finger in disdain at them and remind THEM about the oath they took?  They won't take it from an arm chair QB sharp shooting their actions on the ground any better than I am.

You're being nothing more than an arrogant prick with a loose grasp of facts to try and claim some moral high ground on this and all you're doing is looking foolish.

[Rebel]

You wanna wag your finger in disdain at them and remind THEM about the oath they took?

They violated that oath. Next you'll be telling us, "hey, if you have nothing to hide, what's the problem?"

[txradioguy]

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.

Once again for the slow learners:

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).

http://www.lectlaw.com/def/e063.htm

Now show me hard evidence that wasn't the case in Watertown.

If you're going to go that sleazy route, make sure your jackboots are laced up correctly.

Sleazy?  That's rich coming from the armchair QB trying to remind ME of my oath.




[/quote]

[Rebel]

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.

[txradioguy]

They violated that oath.

In your opinion.  Which somehow here for you...trumps reality and facts.

But hey...if it makes you feel sooo much more superior to the rest of us...who am I to ruin your fantasy.

[Rebel]

Sleazy?  That's rich coming from the armchair QB trying to remind ME of my oath.

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.

[txradioguy]

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.

Oooo don't like it when the shoe in on the other foot Reb?

Never once did I indicate you were supporting the bombers.  Didn't even hint at it.  All I said was you're looking at the cops as the enemy here and that's wrong.

YOU jumped to that conclusion...not me.  However...on the other hand...
 
Supposedly according to you I hate the Constitution...I've violated my oath as a soldier and I'd cheer people getting zip tied in their front yard.

It's perfectly ok to say that

[txradioguy]

I'm the armchair QB? Tell me, TRG, when and where did you get your law degree?

Never said I had one.  Hence the reason I do RESEARCH and find factual evidence to back up what I'm saying.

Otherwise I'd just be posting long winded rants based on nothing more than emotion like...well...you are.

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.

Neither am I.  But that's not stopping you from accusing me of it now is it?

[formerlurker]

Absolutely no idea what happened at this residence and why it was surrounded like that - this did not happen at each home.  But don't you let lack of facts get in the way of your fabricated outrage.   

[formerlurker]

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."

http://www.wkrg.com/story/22058099/did-boston-police-go-too-far-during-search

You have no idea if they had a warrant based on these tips, what the tips were and I love the comment on this article - proof this was even in Watertown please.