View Full Version : Sorry but this IS a violation of one's 4th amendment rights
brickboy240
04-25-13, 12:22
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FQ1-ZUN3Li0
Say what you want but yanking people out of their homes at gun point and not even allowing them to grab shoes IS a total violation of our 4th amendment rights.
What is amazing is how the people in MA think it was ok! I guess decades of being trampled by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and John Kerry have softened them up to having their rights violated in such a manner.
...sad.
-brickboy240
platoonDaddy
04-25-13, 12:26
Has Watertown Made Warrantless Searches The 'New Normal'?
http://cnsnews.com/blog/bob-parks/has-watertown-made-warrantless-searches-new-normal
Unless the following happens, the answer to the above is YES!
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad176/slickville/Vote_zpse4a960cc.jpeg (http://s933.photobucket.com/user/slickville/media/Vote_zpse4a960cc.jpeg.html)
Don't question authority! Welcome to the terror watch list for quoting the Bill of Rights.
You are a poor example of the ideal subject. :)
brickboy240
04-25-13, 12:38
Calmly knocking on doors and asking people questions or asking to check for the suspect is ok. Especially if they are nice about it and do not point guns at us or break the door on the way in.
Pounding on the door, pointing guns at us or ripping down the door...well...THAT I have a huge problem with!
Who pays to repair the door that the cops race up and tear down? Is it just "tough shit" and I have to now go out and buy a new door? All because some cops thought a terrorist might be hiding in my house? I have done nothing wrong but you get to tear the shit out of my house and I have to go pay to repair it? Is this Cuba or Venezuela?...or the United States?
How about the guy dragged out of his house without allowing the man to even put on his damn shoes? Dragging him out at gun point? The man seemed to have been complying and not being a belligerent asshole...he still gets dragged out at gun point with no shoes?
...really?
I am normally behind what cops do but this really disturbs me. This does not look like America anymore...sorry.
-brickboy240
Crow Hunter
04-25-13, 12:56
Has Watertown Made Warrantless Searches The 'New Normal'?
http://cnsnews.com/blog/bob-parks/has-watertown-made-warrantless-searches-new-normal
Unless the following happens, the answer to the above is YES!
http://i933.photobucket.com/albums/ad176/slickville/Vote_zpse4a960cc.jpeg (http://s933.photobucket.com/user/slickville/media/Vote_zpse4a960cc.jpeg.html)
Note the reporter making sure everyone knows how necessary it was for everyone's "safety" and hey they apologized, right?
So as long as they apologize for dragging you out of your home at gunpoint, that is okay?:rolleyes:
If they seize your retirement and assets for redistribution, but they apologize for it, that is okay?
What about when they put you on a traincar and send you to a reeducation camp, for your own good? Put they apologize, that makes it okay?
WHAT IS THIS COUNTRY TURNING INTO?!?!
I love it. The reporter used the phrase "rescued at gunpoint". I don't ****ing think so.
There was a time when the press had an adversarial relationship with the government. They were the Fourth Estate. Ask tough questions and generally not blindly accept what the government told them. Not anymore. They are no more than a willing propaganda arm of the government. If it doesn't fit the official playbook, it gets down played, marginalized, twisted or ignored.
While I do not believe there was any justifiable reason for the authorities to search anyone's house without either a clear indication that the suspect they were seeking was in that house or they had the home owner's permission (and they knew who he was and what he looked like), I suppose those more knowledgable of the law could make the argument that they in fact did have that authority.
It may even have been smart and proper to have the residents of the home step outside during the search - if the authorities did find the suspect, it may have ended with shots fired and possibly explosives involved, and it's best to get the citizens out before that happens. If I was there with my wife and daughters, I would want us to be out too.
However, that does NOT give them the right to remove people at gunpoint, hands up, and searched for weapons. Officer safety? **** that. Their safety should not trump my or my family's safety, or our rights.
I do not know the MA law regarding concealed or open carry of firearms either in ones own home, on ones own property, or on the street.
I am guessing, but I bet if anyone had been armed, even if completely legal, that weapon would be removed and NOT RETURNED. Certainly not right away. I could be wrong about this, but somehow I doubt it.
Why were the homeowners treated like they were the terrorists? I still think about the photo of the cop in the APC pointing his rifle at the homeowner taking video from his window. I said this in the thread that got closed - they must have known who he was because they should have already searched his house. If they hadn't, why did they all leave when the search they were conducting was complete? So much for securing the area.
This is no different than when the cops disarmed the residents of NOLA after Kartina.
I'm not sure what is worse - that it happened with such ease, or that no one seems bothered by it.
At least these harsh, drastic measures proved effective...
Oh wait it was AFTER the curfew was lifted and Joe Citizen was free to wander out onto his porch for a smoke, saw blood and peeked under the boat tarp that the suspect was found!
The last one made me LOL, as she essentially said she was happy that they terrified her apologetically. :confused:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FQ1-ZUN3Li0
Say what you want but yanking people out of their homes at gun point and not even allowing them to grab shoes IS a total violation of our 4th amendment rights.
What is amazing is how the people in MA think it was ok! I guess decades of being trampled by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and John Kerry have softened them up to having their rights violated in such a manner.
...sad.
-brickboy240
So did you have a change of heart? In the other thread, you seemed to be giving a pass to some of these actions by LEOs.
brickboy240
04-25-13, 16:17
Well...on the other thread, the ONLY footage I saw was from a distance and there was no audio. People were ushered out of their homes in a quick fashion but nobody was dragged out and guns were not pointed at home occupants.
THIS time...I saw first hand accounts and words from those that were dragged out. One guy said he had guns pointed at him and they would not let him get his shoes.
Of course that is VERY different from cops coming to the door and asking politely about a search. Many of the home occupants were visibly shaken by how they were treated.
Yeah...that tends to chance one's mind on the subject. I was not just going to view one far away video and jump to the "our rights are being violated" side. Needed more proof....and I got it.
This was a blatant violation. Ordinary citizens...the ones that pay the salaries of the cops....sitting in their homes....non-criminals not bothering anyone....were treated like criminals right off the bat.
And the cops wonder why so many don't trust them? Hey, I do NOT want to distrust the police but this kind of shit really makes me question their actions.
You come to MY door and ask politely...I will probably let you search through in the hopes of speeding you along to find the bad guys. Hell..I might even offer you and your unit some bottles of water or a Coke or snack! LOL
You bang on my door or tear up my property, point guns at me and yell for me to leave without even my shoes and yes...you will hear from a lawyer because that is a violation of my 4th amendment rights.
Is that clearer now?
-brickboy240
This all needs to be aired out and sorted out, but if it ends up being as it appears, those who gave the orders and those who followed the orders need to be brought up on charges.
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 18:19
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FQ1-ZUN3Li0
Say what you want but yanking people out of their homes at gun point and not even allowing them to grab shoes IS a total violation of our 4th amendment rights.
What is amazing is how the people in MA think it was ok! I guess decades of being trampled by the likes of Ted Kennedy, Barney Frank and John Kerry have softened them up to having their rights violated in such a manner.
...sad.
-brickboy240
Exigent circumstances more like and necessary to catch terrorist who had just planted two bombs and killed a police officer, citizens and injuried several more. But of course we could just not search and let them go is that your desire?
Pat
The 4A has no provision for exigent circumstances. The 4A has no room for emotional pleas. It is a violation of those peoples rights, plain & simple.
Whiskey_Bravo
04-25-13, 18:41
Exigent circumstances more like and necessary to catch terrorist who had just planted two bombs and killed a police officer, citizens and injuried several more. But of course we could just not search and let them go is that your desire?
Pat
Well holy shit, just to be be safe should go ahead and water board everyone of those homeowners too. You know just to make sure they aren't holding back..... with those exigent circumstances and all.
So your idea is either full on house to house illegal searches and removal from their home at gun point or let the lone terrorist go? Really, those are the only two options?
If someone saw the guy go into one of the houses then sure, but exigent circumstances do not and should not cover blanket warrantless searches for entire sections of a city just because it makes you feel safer.
platoonDaddy
04-25-13, 18:43
Exigent circumstances more like and necessary to catch terrorist who had just planted two bombs and killed a police officer, citizens and injuried several more. But of course we could just not search and let them go is that your desire?
Pat
Pat
Until the above, I have been silent on your posts on us vs them. Officers of the law and military take an oath to always uphold the constitution. In Watertown the law enforcement agencies involved trampled on their oath & the constitution.
What did they accomplish from their actions other than trampling all over the 4th amendment? Please enlighten this oldMan.
Thank god a civilian needed a smoke!
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-13, 19:01
Exigent circumstances more like and necessary to catch terrorist who had just planted two bombs and killed a police officer, citizens and injuried several more. But of course we could just not search and let them go is that your desire?
Pat
Straw man arguement with some false dichotomy thrown in.
I expect better out of you and you should too.
If you can indisciminately clear a whole town looking for one man, the 4A means nothing.
Tell me again why you have to point guns at people who ARE OBVIOSLY NOT THE SUSPECT?
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 19:03
Straw man arguement with some false dichotomy thrown in.
I expect better out of you and you should too.
If you can indisciminately clear a whole town looking for one man, the 4A means nothing.
Tell me again why you have to point guns at people who ARE OBVIOSLY NOT THE SUSPECT?
You need to read the exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Also do you expect police not to be armed heavily when looking for a killer? Its not like the police were cork scewing their muzzles into peoples heads.
Pat
xrayoneone
04-25-13, 19:24
You need to read the exceptions to the search warrant requirement. Also do you expect police not to be armed heavily when looking for a killer? Its not like the police were cork scewing their muzzles into peoples heads.
Pat
I think you need to re-read the exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
That is not law enforcement, that is a military action.
Glad the officers apologized to the citizens after the event, but what does that mean?
threeheadeddog
04-25-13, 19:52
This is where the legal system needs to remove the police exemptions from laws such as the Castle laws and self defense laws. There also needs to be some protection of the populace from laws which punish a person for not complying(resisting arrest) if found innocent of whatever the police were there for in the first place.
This would change the way issues like this are approached. Basically if someone is threatned that person, unless being confronted over something that he/she is later found guilty of, is allowed to defend themselves/homes without the discrimination of the current system. A persons guilt in relation to the act of defending oneself would be tied to a combination of current self defense law(resonable need to use force displayed) and the guilt of the infraction that one was threatned for.
Basic example
Someone breaks into someones house-home owner defends himself...if criminal breaking in good shoot...if LEO, because they are checking for terrorist(or drugs or whatever) than it is only a clean shoot if no terrorist is found present(or drugs or whatever the believed infraction) . If terririst is being harbored(or whatever) than the homeowner gets original plus murder for the shoot.
You can certainly carry at ready, but to point directly at me? That's BS.....It's too easy to get caught up in all the 'excitement', especially when you have the benefit of the badge and the law on your side. You do that down here in the South, and it might get bad quick.
Some people went too far, and I hope they later reflect upon their actions, remembering that someday THEY may not have that badge anymore and would expect better treatment than they gave out...
I was a soldier and even I was taught better than that...
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-13, 20:09
Come on guys, they brought the milk and cookies.
Exigent circumstances more like and necessary to catch terrorist who had just planted two bombs and killed a police officer, citizens and injuried several more. But of course we could just not search and let them go is that your desire?
Pat
Really?
While the forced (uninvited) entry into people's homes may or may not have been legal (I believe it wasn't, but that may be up for debate), forcing the residents out at gunpoint, hands up, and then physically searched when these same residents were obviously not the subject of the search is so far over the top that for a anyone, but especially a LEO to try and justify this is quite frightening.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-25-13, 20:57
Are we citizens, or are we targets?
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 21:42
I think you need to re-read the exceptions to the search warrant requirement.
No you do. It cleary comes under exigent circumstances.
Read up.
http://www.caselaw4cops.net/articles/exceptions.html#s1
1. Exigent circumstances are situations where immediate action is necessary. If the officer takes the time to get a warrant, evidence will be destroyed, life could be lost, or the suspect could escape.
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 21:45
You can certainly carry at ready, but to point directly at me? That's BS.....It's too easy to get caught up in all the 'excitement', especially when you have the benefit of the badge and the law on your side. You do that down here in the South, and it might get bad quick.
Some people went too far, and I hope they later reflect upon their actions, remembering that someday THEY may not have that badge anymore and would expect better treatment than they gave out...
I was a soldier and even I was taught better than that...
Where is any evidence such as a pic where the cops where pointing their guns and not at low ready?
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 21:49
Really?
While the forced (uninvited) entry into people's homes may or may not have been legal (I believe it wasn't, but that may be up for debate), forcing the residents out at gunpoint, hands up, and then physically searched when these same residents were obviously not the subject of the search is so far over the top that for a anyone, but especially a LEO to try and justify this is quite frightening.
Searching the homes for someone who is armed and dangerous and who had just killed people is enough justification to remove people from their homes for their own safety and to locate the suspect is reasonable. As for being at gun point they are still looking for an armed suspect. I doubt the citizens had muzzles shoved in their faces. Apparently no one here has never been in a stressfull situation of this magnitude so the litany of stupid comments is to be expected. Monday morning quarterbacking is never a good thing.
Pat
Pat
xrayoneone
04-25-13, 22:00
No you do. It cleary comes under exigent circumstances.
Read up.
http://www.caselaw4cops.net/articles/exceptions.html#s1
1. Exigent circumstances are situations where immediate action is necessary. If the officer takes the time to get a warrant, evidence will be destroyed, life could be lost, or the suspect could escape.
What exigent circumstance? You're talking about the "hot pursuit" exigency. Read it. Carefully. Because clearly you do not know it.
It clearly states:
PC to Arrest for
Serious Crime
Immediate or Continuous Pursuit
From a Public Place
with PROBABLE CAUSE TO BELIEVE THE SUSPECT IS IN THE RESIDENCE.
Randomly busting in doors shows a lack of the last. Shouting "exigency" shows that you lack the basics to even articulate what the exigency is.
ETA: It was a homeowner going about his business that found this guy. Not the cops so amped up they got caught up in the adrenaline rush of busting doors.
And "monday morning quarter backing" is always good. The military calls them AARs my agency calls them debriefs. It is what professionals do.
Exigent circumstances more like and necessary to catch terrorist who had just planted two bombs and killed a police officer, citizens and injuried several more. But of course we could just not search and let them go is that your desire?
Pat
Exigent circumstances only apply to a specific building that LE saw the suspect run into. It does not apply to a whole city.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Where is any evidence such as a pic where the cops where pointing their guns and not at low ready?
Pat
Searching the homes for someone who is armed and dangerous and who had just killed people is enough justification to remove people from their homes for their own safety and to locate the suspect is reasonable. As for being at gun point they are still looking for an armed suspect. I doubt the citizens had muzzles shoved in their faces. Apparently no one here has never been in a stressfull situation of this magnitude so the litany of stupid comments is to be expected. Monday morning quarterbacking is never a good thing.
Pat
Pat
Are you kidding me? I mean, you have to be joking right? I don't usually take the time to call you out when you start this nonsense, but to say that you haven't seen muzzles pointed at law abiding citizens is just plain blatant disregard for the facts. You haven't even looked into this issue, have you? Because if you did, there's no way that you can see the pics, vids, and first-hand accounts and say what you've said.
And no. It's not exigency. A previous poster explained it pretty well, so I'll leave it at that. There were obviously some good LEO's who did it the right way, and there were absolutely some who did it wrong. The thing that everyone is concerned about is that this would become commonplace...a blatant disregard for the Constitution. Not acceptable.
Also, please, get over yourself with the whole "you've never been in a stressful situation". You've said this quite enough and are no different than alot of guys here, civilians, other than your CHOSEN profession. Most here, especially the caliber of guys on this forum, will not cower and piss down their leg when rounds start flying while you save the day. Fantasyland.
If anyone, let alone LE, can condone how that search was conducted then the terrorist have already won.
xrayoneone
04-25-13, 22:49
Exigent circumstances only apply to a specific building that LE saw the suspect run into. It does not apply to a whole city.
Sorry, you are wrong.
The police do not need to physically see him run into a building, they just have to have PC that he is in there or may be in there. But yeah, an entire city is BS. I'm worried that some idiot bench warmer will rule "legal" Setting another precedent further eroding peoples rights.
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 23:09
Exigent circumstances only apply to a specific building that LE saw the suspect run into. It does not apply to a whole city.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Tell me where it says a specific building. It can also be an area. It seems that many on here did not want these guys caught.
Also show me one pic of a cop in this pointing their guns at citizens in this incident.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 23:11
Are you kidding me? I mean, you have to be joking right? I don't usually take the time to call you out when you start this nonsense, but to say that you haven't seen muzzles pointed at law abiding citizens is just plain blatant disregard for the facts. You haven't even looked into this issue, have you? Because if you did, there's no way that you can see the pics, vids, and first-hand accounts and say what you've said.
And no. It's not exigency. A previous poster explained it pretty well, so I'll leave it at that. There were obviously some good LEO's who did it the right way, and there were absolutely some who did it wrong. The thing that everyone is concerned about is that this would become commonplace...a blatant disregard for the Constitution. Not acceptable.
Also, please, get over yourself with the whole "you've never been in a stressful situation". You've said this quite enough and are no different than alot of guys here, civilians, other than your CHOSEN profession. Most here, especially the caliber of guys on this forum, will not cower and piss down their leg when rounds start flying while you save the day. Fantasyland.
Nothing I hate more than monday morning quarterbacks. That is the real nonsense. Think you can do it better sign up. We have a lot of foks on here who like to go to training (nothing wrong with that) but then they some how think they know what the **** they are talking about in police matters and they clearly don't. By the way my degree was in criminal justice where I studied such things as search warrant exemptions. What was yours in?
Pat
Trading liberty for security ...
http://www.prosebeforehos.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/national-security-comic.jpg
Nothing I hate more than monday morning quarterbacks. That is the real nonsense. Think you can do it better sign up. We have a lot of foks on here who like to go to training (nothing wrong with that) but then they some how think they know what the **** they are talking about in police matters and they clearly don't. By the way my degree was in criminal justice where I studied such things as search warrant exemptions. What was yours in?
Pat
Right.
Straw man arguments, blatant disregard for the facts, avoiding answering questions, superiority complex, ect. ect. ect. (I'm sure I'm missing a few)
Carry on dude. Lost cause.
Alaskapopo
04-25-13, 23:22
Right.
Straw man arguments, blatant disregard for the facts, avoiding answering questions, superiority complex, ect. ect. ect. (I'm sure I'm missing a few)
Carry on dude. Lost cause.
Yea right personal insults ignoring exemptions to the search warrant requirement and prior case precident. (also this is not the hot pursuit exemption as some have claimed rather the emergency exemption such as hearing someone scream inside a home) Also what facts. Still no picture from you showing a cop holding a gun to a citizens head.
More anti LEO bull crap from the same people. In your world the police can never do anything right. They caught these bastards and lost one of their own in the process. But no thats not enough for the tin foil heads. Your right any converstation with a certain group of people on here is a lost cause. They will always find a way to blame the police.
Pat
Yea right personal insults ignoring exemptions to the search warrant requirement and prior case precident. (also this is not the hot pursuit exemption as some have claimed rather the emergency exemption such as hearing someone scream inside a home) Also what facts. Still no picture from you showing a cop holding a gun to a citizens head.
More anti LEO bull crap from the same people. In your world the police can never do anything right. They caught these bastards and lost one of their own in the process. But no thats not enough for the tin foil heads. Your right any converstation with a certain group of people on here is a lost cause. They will always find a way to blame the police.
Pat
Hearing someone scream would give PC to enter w/o a warrant. The exemptions that you are tying to stretch to fit your interpretation just don't apply to what happened in Boston.
I'm not providing a picture/video for you because it has already been posted in this thread and the other thread. If you actually cared for the facts then you would have found it instead of blindly defending any and every guy who wears a badge.
And just because someone disagrees with you and calls out your non-stop drivel about how LEO are never wrong doesn't make them anti-anything. Hell you even call some LEOs on this forum "Anti-LEO", how ironic is that??
You chose your career, I chose mine. If you can't handle the microscope that comes with your career, then it may be time for you to find something less stressful.
Tell me where it says a specific building. It can also be an area. It seems that many on here did not want these guys caught.
Also show me one pic of a cop in this pointing their guns at citizens in this incident.
Pat
That's a good question. I'm aware of one instance where an officer (I believe MASP SWAT based on uniform and patch) in the turret of a M1151 is photographed aiming a weapon at the person taking the picture. Now, it is entirely possible that the officer was simply scanning for threats and not actually trying to aim at the photographer when the picture was taken. We will likely never know.
Outside of that one instance, I'm not seeing much in the way of police aiming weapons at citizens. I know that one gentleman in the posted video claims that he was awoken with weapons pointed at his head. However, this is the only person that I can find who is documented on tape making such claim. It makes me wonder who let the police into his home since everybody else claims that the police knocked on their door?
Something else that I've noticed is the very careful language the reporter uses in his documentary. For example, he states that the police were, "pointing guns" but never actually says that they were being pointed at a citizen. Some of the citizens being interviewed say that they were frightened by the weapons, but only the one that I mentioned claims that the weapons were actually pointed at them.
Finally, here is a good article that discusses the legal framework for the searches as it pertains to a public safety exception to the 4th Amendment. I found this portion particularly interesting:
While some sources have conflated the two ideas, saying the exigent circumstances doctrine allowed Boston and federal police to search homes in the Tsarnaev manhunt because of public safety concerns, Rossman says public safety is a separate exception to the Fourth Amendment.
Professor David Rossman
“That was really the public safety exception, not so much the exigent circumstances exception,” says Rossman. “In the latter, they need probable cause. For the former, they don’t; they just have to have a reasonable belief that there is a potential danger to the occupants inside a dwelling.”
http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/04/exigent-circumstances-and-public-safety-in-watertown/
Exigent circumstances only apply to a specific building that LE saw the suspect run into. It does not apply to a whole city.
Sorry, you are wrong.
Clearly you didn't read the ruling from the Colorado lockdown of an entire intersection as the District Court judge had a differing opinion. In fact, not only did the defendant plead guilty thereafter, his counsel did not appeal. The points put forth in the non-binding opinion gives clear guidance in which direction the appellate courts might lean, or where SCOTUS might turn.
I'll make it easy for you;
www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/us-dragnet.pdf
Belmont31R
04-26-13, 00:42
Tell me where it says a specific building. It can also be an area. It seems that many on here did not want these guys caught.
Also show me one pic of a cop in this pointing their guns at citizens in this incident.
Pat
You are wrong, and disgusting.
Maybe look through some threads here with videos and photos. No one wants to rehash a bunch of pic and vid links for you.
Exigent circumstances does NOT apply to an entire city wide block. WTF are you smoking up there? Exigent circumstances applies to NARROW set of circumstances. We find out today he UNARMED when captured so WTF?
So the next time an 'armed and dangerous' bank robber gets away YOU going to but down every door in a 5 block radius?
Why aren't "Exigent Circumstances" unconstitutional?
"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." Unless there is a manhunt for a kid in a boat.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 00:48
Clearly you didn't read the ruling from the Colorado lockdown of an entire intersection as the District Court judge had a differing opinion. In fact, not only did the defendant plead guilty thereafter, his counsel did not appeal. The points put forth in the non-binding opinion gives clear guidance in which direction the appellate courts might lean, or where SCOTUS might turn.
I'll make it easy for you;
www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/us-dragnet.pdf
What you cite relates to a GPS tracking device in a readily mobile conveyance. Different rules. The OP is relating instances of entering a persons home using the hot pursuit exigency. That circumstance clearly states the officers need to have probable cause the individual in question is in that residence. It doesn't pertain to areas or any house you can see. You need to have PROBABLE CAUSE. This was spelled out in Warden v Hayden
Alaskapopo: I mean this with all sincerity, YOU are the EXACT person that causes non-police officers to HATE police officers.
You are a liability to the very communities you are sworn to protect and a danger to the residents of said community. You demonstrate no ability to judge right from wrong and simply blindly defend those who wear the same uniform as you while simultaneously condemning all those who don't. Anyone who questions that ignorant approach is a cop-hater in your eyes and you attempt to discredit them as if you're already on trial. It's not that simple and, like it or not, people who wear the same uniform as you do bad things. Reality. If you defend those who do bad things you quickly get lumped in with them with good reason. You claim to be educated but your posts in this thread and all threads of similar topic speak volumes to the opposite. You really do need to do some introspect before you **** up something beyond repair because it's coming with your attitude.
Wake up.
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 01:31
You are wrong, and disgusting.
Maybe look through some threads here with videos and photos. No one wants to rehash a bunch of pic and vid links for you.
Exigent circumstances does NOT apply to an entire city wide block. WTF are you smoking up there? Exigent circumstances applies to NARROW set of circumstances. We find out today he UNARMED when captured so WTF?
So the next time an 'armed and dangerous' bank robber gets away YOU going to but down every door in a 5 block radius?
More personal insults and what did you get your degree in? Your wrong as has been pointed out by another poster.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 01:33
Alaskapopo: I mean this with all sincerity, YOU are the EXACT person that causes non-police officers to HATE police officers.
You are a liability to the very communities you are sworn to protect and a danger to the residents of said community. You demonstrate no ability to judge right from wrong and simply blindly defend those who wear the same uniform as you while simultaneously condemning all those who don't. Anyone who questions that ignorant approach is a cop-hater in your eyes and you attempt to discredit them as if you're already on trial. It's not that simple and, like it or not, people who wear the same uniform as you do bad things. Reality. If you defend those who do bad things you quickly get lumped in with them with good reason. You claim to be educated but your posts in this thread and all threads of similar topic speak volumes to the opposite. You really do need to do some introspect before you **** up something beyond repair because it's coming with your attitude.
Wake up.
Coming from an anonomous tin foil hat wearing guy on the net I will take that as a compliment. Believe it or not I am well liked in my community. (gasp)
I am fully aware that cops do bad things. But taking two terrorist off the street was not one of them.
Pat
Belmont31R
04-26-13, 01:45
More personal insults and what did you get your degree in? Your wrong as has been pointed out by another poster.
Pat
lol was not a personal insult. Always the victim card with you, and no...no one has provided a case where because someone was on the loose every house within a certain radius could be searched like with what happened here with block by block household searches.
Belmont31R
04-26-13, 01:49
Coming from an anonomous tin foil hat wearing guy on the net I will take that as a compliment. Believe it or not I am well liked in my community. (gasp)
I am fully aware that cops do bad things. But taking two terrorist off the street was not one of them.
Pat
lmao the next post after claiming victim status you throw out the tin foil accusation and take it as a compliment.
One post you are a victim, and the next a hero of the state....:rolleyes:
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 01:50
lmao the next post after claiming victim status you throw out the tin foil accusation and take it as a compliment.
One post you are a victim, and the next a hero of the state....:rolleyes:
Are you drunk right now? :rolleyes: I don't recall claiming to be a hero of the state or a victim.
Pat
More personal insults and what did you get your degree in? Your wrong as has been pointed out by another poster.
Pat
Your use of of the word you're should be accurate in a statement where you are bringing someone else's education credentials into question. For the record, I don't have a degree in English since I'm sure you'll question that next since I dared bring your intelligence on a topic into question.
Coming from an anonomous tin foil hat wearing guy on the net I will take that as a compliment. Believe it or not I am well liked in my community. (gasp)
I am fully aware that cops do bad things. But taking two terrorist off the street was not one of them.
Pat
The word you're (see what I did there) looking for is anonymous smart guy. I'm not sure where you got your degree but I question their motivation because it's clearly not education.
I never said taking two terrorists off of the street was bad. The tactics used to do so was wrong and sacrificing everyone's rights because of your 'cause' doesn't make it any better. The Constitution was created to protect our rights when things are going BAD not when they are going fine. Things are in chaos and people aren't sure what to do next? Good, fall back on the people's civil rights as a source of stability. Why people in power these days think one little crisis is cause to throw everyone's rights out the window is scary. Come try to pull me out of my home, when I've done nothing wrong, against my will in the name of safety because a criminal is on the loose outside of my home and we're going to have problems.
What they were doing was good. How they went about doing it was bad. You don't seem to possess the intelligence to separate the two though so you find yourself arguing people who are right all the time.
Belmont31R
04-26-13, 01:53
Are you drunk right now? :rolleyes:
Pat
Personal insult! :(
So what cases can you point me to where a fugitive on the loose allows for door to to door searches under exigent circumstances?
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 01:57
Your use of of the word you're should be accurate in a statement where you are bringing someone else's education credentials into question. For the record, I don't have a degree in English since I'm sure you'll question that next since I dared bring your intelligence on a topic into question.
The word you're (see what I did there) looking for is anonymous smart guy. I'm not sure where you got your degree but I question their motivation because it's clearly not education.
I never said taking two terrorists off of the street was bad. The tactics used to do so was wrong and sacrificing everyone's rights because of your 'cause' doesn't make it any better. The Constitution was created to protect our rights when things are going BAD not when they are going fine. Things are in chaos and people aren't sure what to do next? Good, fall back on the people's civil rights as a source of stability. Why people in power these days think one little crisis is cause to throw everyone's rights out the window is scary. Come try to pull me out of my home, when I've done nothing wrong, against my will in the name of safety because a criminal is on the loose outside of my home and we're going to have problems.
What they were doing was good. How they went about doing it was bad. You don't seem to possess the intelligence to separate the two though so you find yourself arguing people who are right all the time.
The more extreme the circumstances the more extreme the tactics that can be used. There are limits to our 4th amendment rights as has been pointed out. You seem to lack the intelligence to be able to understand that. Did you expect the police to get warrants for each home they searched while looking for two armed killers responsible for the bombings? This clearly falls under exigent circumstances.
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 01:57
Personal insult! :(
So what cases can you point me to where a fugitive on the loose allows for door to to door searches under exigent circumstances?
So its ok for you to call me disgusting but not ok for me to ask if you're drunk?:rolleyes:
Anyway I have had enough of this thread from the usual suspects?
Pat
Belmont31R
04-26-13, 02:04
So its ok for you to call me disgusting but not ok for me to ask if you're drunk?:rolleyes:
Anyway I have had enough of this thread from the usual suspects?
Pat
So you refuse to answer the question? Why even post then? Going to run after your victimization claim while doing a drive by?
Seems like the lefties here want to lay a turd and then claim victim status and abandon the argument when pressed for facts. Just like all the rest of the liberals Ive debated in person. As soon as they can't come up with facts the debate gets ended.
Lame....
Tell me where it says a specific building. It can also be an area. It seems that many on here did not want these guys caught.
Also show me one pic of a cop in this pointing their guns at citizens in this incident.
Pat
Your overreaching interpretation of exigent circumstance is laughable. Did the officers hear screams inside every home they searched? Laughable. At the very least, Watertown is uncharted territory. The courts may ultimately side with LEO's in this event, but it will be new and unique jurisprudence, not boilerplate. And don't bother waxing poetic on your degree, I was the honor graduate for my academy class, mostly due to acing the law block. Neither means we're constitutional scholars on the same level as Judge Napolitano.
As for your demands on the pic(s), it's in the locked thread, so go find it yourself.
Clearly you didn't read the ruling from the Colorado lockdown of an entire intersection as the District Court judge had a differing opinion. In fact, not only did the defendant plead guilty thereafter, his counsel did not appeal. The points put forth in the non-binding opinion gives clear guidance in which direction the appellate courts might lean, or where SCOTUS might turn.
I'll make it easy for you;
www.thenewspaper.com/rlc/docs/2012/us-dragnet.pdf
Obviously 20 vehicles at a single intersection doesn't equal the interior of homes over multiple blocks. There was no tracking device pinpointing even the general location of Tsarnev. In fact, he was found outside the cordoned area LE expected him to be within. That he was located by a resident and not the police doesn't bolster their case in this instance. As stated above, the courts may side with LE on this one, but it isn't covered under exigent circumstance as it currently stands. Likewise the public safety exemption would be a stretch, due to the size of the area involved.
For everyone in this thread, we have to remember that results do not justify the means. How many times have we heard that since grade school? I'd caution anyone that argues against Tsarnev's Miranda reading, for sending him to Gitmo or anything in between of the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. :(
Belmont31R
04-26-13, 02:16
Exactly. The camera shots they got were from private citizens or businesses. Their names were from private citizens. The younger one was caught by a private citizen going to investigate a blood streak on his boat.
But here some want to lead us to believe a great police state with cameras will twart these events and wrapped everything up. Mind boggling.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-13, 08:47
It seems that many on here did not want these guys caught.
Pat
Piss off.
What are you doing on a forum with a bunch of terrorist sympathizers?
I truly don't give a **** what happens to the idiots in blue states any longer. They deserve all the evil they voted for as far as I'm concerned.
Now if this happened here in AZ or another non-Retarded State, I'd be shouting from the rooftops with the best of them.
What you cite relates to a GPS tracking device in a readily mobile conveyance. Different rules. The OP is relating instances of entering a persons home using the hot pursuit exigency. That circumstance clearly states the officers need to have probable cause the individual in question is in that residence. It doesn't pertain to areas or any house you can see. You need to have PROBABLE CAUSE. This was spelled out in Warden v Hayden
The ruling covered several issues, particularly the stop and detention, and did not focus exclusively on the use of the tracker. His articulation of the legality of detention is germane to this discussion.
It seems that many on here did not want these guys caught.
No, it really does not. It seems like YOU like to spool other people up by posting conclusions that you bend facts to support, instead of using facts to allow for a conclusion to be made. Gets annoying, particulkarly when you deliberately apply it in the manner you do.
Take a break.
Your overreaching interpretation of exigent circumstance is laughable. Did the officers hear screams inside every home they searched? Laughable. At the very least, Watertown is uncharted territory. The courts may ultimately side with LEO's in this event, but it will be new and unique jurisprudence, not boilerplate. And don't bother waxing poetic on your degree, I was the honor graduate for my academy class, mostly due to acing the law block. Neither means we're constitutional scholars on the same level as Judge Napolitano.
As for your demands on the pic(s), it's in the locked thread, so go find it yourself.
Obviously 20 vehicles at a single intersection doesn't equal the interior of homes over multiple blocks. There was no tracking device pinpointing even the general location of Tsarnev. In fact, he was found outside the cordoned area LE expected him to be within. That he was located by a resident and not the police doesn't bolster their case in this instance. As stated above, the courts may side with LE on this one, but it isn't covered under exigent circumstance as it currently stands. Likewise the public safety exemption would be a stretch, due to the size of the area involved.
For everyone in this thread, we have to remember that results do not justify the means. How many times have we heard that since grade school? I'd caution anyone that argues against Tsarnev's Miranda reading, for sending him to Gitmo or anything in between of the same thing. Two wrongs don't make a right. :(
I'm not sure where this notion of exigent circumstances got brought up because it was not the basis for the police searches that were seen during the hunt for the Bomber. I've already posted 2 articles that note the police were using the public safety exception to the 4th Amendment protections from unreasonable search and seizure when they executed the relatively few involuntary searches that were performed. From what I can tell, the police did a fair job of limiting the scope of these searches to only the portion of the town that they reasonably believed contained the suspect. The fact that he was found a couple blocks outside of their parameter indicates to me that the police were being conservative in their estimations and trying to minimize their footprint. I might be more critical of the police had there been more widespread searches or arrests for contraband found on these searches.
Finally, I understand there is a strong libertarian sentiment on this forum. However, the 4th Amendment leaves a big hole for interpretation when it uses the term UNREASONABLE search and seizure. This gives the courts a fair amount of wiggle room to determine what is reasonable, and this seems to be a major point of friction on this issue. Like it or not, there is case law that gives the police authority to perform warrantless searches when there is a pressing public safety concern. Personally, I try to answer the question of was the perceived public safety threat (without using hindsight) sufficient to justify the exceptions to 4th Amendment in those instances where the the searches were involuntary. So far, I'm saying the perceived threat at the time was sufficient and it seems that the vast majority of Watertown citizens agree.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-13, 10:14
"Public Safety" is going to be the death of Liberty.....
relatively few involuntary searches that were performed
vast majority of Watertown citizens agree
Pareto's Liberty
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/14/chicago-weekend-shootings_n_3081840.html
Chicago has 4 dead and 26 wounded over the weekend. That's near Boston numbers, should we start house to house warrantless searches in the small neighborhoods were all the shootings happen?? Why not? The public is not safe...
brickboy240
04-26-13, 10:50
Did you watch the video?
One guy in the first hand accounts was pulled out of his home in a hurry and not even allowed to grab his shoes...at gun point!
I understand trying to find a suspect in a hurry, but THAT is a violation of his Constitutional rights....sorry.
Jerking ordinary citizens out of their homes bare foot in an insensitive manner and at gun point is not necessary. Would you cops be cool if that was your elderly mom or dad being jerked outside with no shoes?
Come on now...
-brickboy240
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 11:37
The ruling covered several issues, particularly the stop and detention, and did not focus exclusively on the use of the tracker. His articulation of the legality of detention is germane to this discussion.
You are comparing cars to houses. Courts have always ruled different in regards to what is reasonable in cars as opposed to your REP in your house. And yes because they mentioned several factors in the court case including:
A vehicle traveling at 30-40 mph.
The GPS tracker that was able to PIN POINT a SPECIFIC location to a few cars, though not the EXACT car.
An UNKNOWN subject.
Given TIME the police would have been able to find the exact car through GPS and surveillance.
Your case is flawed in regards to randomly busting in doors regarding hot pursuit. I cited the exact court case that that exigent circumstance came from. Read WARDEN V. HAYDEN and you will immediately see the differences, cars, and similarities, probable cause suspect is in a specific place. If the police randomly started searching ALL cars on that road it would be more relevant to this conversation. The police had no more probable cause that Tsarnaev was in a house as he had fled the scene. The point in fact is Tsarnaev WAS NOT in a house and had fled the scene. Warden V Hayden specifically states you need PROBABLE CAUSE subject is in the house before entry. What we clearly see is NO PROBABLE CAUSE as the cops were hitting ALL doors. Tsarnaev could no more be in ALL houses as he could domesticate a unicorn and fly to Jupiter.
There are two types of cops here. Those who see this as a disturbing expansion of government invasion into peoples houses. And those that see it as a great expansion of their ability to enter into peoples homes without a warrant.
You need to ask yourself, "what next?" Yes he was a terrorist but is that where it stops? No. The next cop that is shot or killed they will say if someone is willing to hurt a cop they're willing to hurt anyone! Then they'll cite this and start banging random doors. Then it will expand to any murders, assaults, robberies, etc. until or if a court rules against it.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-26-13, 11:59
The main issues I have with the Aurora stop was the time it took to clear the area and felony stop procedures that were followed. The GPS tracker debacle in that case- waiting for the FBI to go get it, then that guy not being certian how to use it is trully enlightening. Make me sit there with my hands out the window for two hours. Go screw yourself.
The cops are lucky they got the judge they did, because their own actions point to the fact that they knew they were on shaky ground. If the GPS tracker gives you the rationale to stop all those cars, why did they need premission to search the cars??? Those two facts are contradictory.
I think the cop created a false exigency by pulling in front of the group of cars and put a number of people at risk- all for property. the cops play the what-if he had noticed them and started a high-speed chase. But how about this what-if that bank robber had been of the West Hollywood variety you would have had a HUGE mess.
Which is another reason I don't like the Boston sweep. You are taking people out of their houses into an environment that cops will only operate in with plate body armor and up-armored Humvees--- screw that. I'm staying in my brick house, thank you very much.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 12:27
I totally agree with you. I just pointed out legal rationale for the decision. This goes to my previous post, all it takes is one stuffed robe legislating from the bench. The police should have followed the tracker until they could figure out which car it was. It wouldn't have taken long. Instead cops in Colorado have more power to invade individuals areas.
Did you watch the video?
One guy in the first hand accounts was pulled out of his home in a hurry and not even allowed to grab his shoes...at gun point!
I understand trying to find a suspect in a hurry, but THAT is a violation of his Constitutional rights....sorry.
Jerking ordinary citizens out of their homes bare foot in an insensitive manner and at gun point is not necessary. Would you cops be cool if that was your elderly mom or dad being jerked outside with no shoes?
Come on now...
-brickboy240
I did indeed watch the video (the unedited vision on Boston Channel 7's website) and addressed those allegations in my post #39.
The guy says that he awoke with guns pointed at him, which implies that the police forced entry into his house. Do you really believe him? If so, you have to accept that the police were doing no knock entries which seems highly unlikely nobody else is reporting this type of experience. Do you think that this person might be overstating their experience in front of a camera?
Any reporter worth his shit would have confirmed how the police got into the house, and which police agency saw fit to do a no knock entry into a house in that manner. Then, there is the fact that the reporter never thought to ask any of the people being interviewed if they were forced out of their homes or did so voluntarily. He also seems to use intentionally vague language by saying that the police "pointed their weapons" without ever specifying if the weapons were being pointed at citizens.
Where is any evidence such as a pic where the cops where pointing their guns and not at low ready?
Pat
Watch the vid (or maybe I need to rewatch it). Low ready would be ok in my book. Oops see someone has already addressed. Certainly no need to run them down the street with their hands above their heads.
Please don't misunderstand me: I'm certainly willing to give the police some latitude in this situation, and I'm on their side when it comes to catching bad guys. If he'd had more bombs and been truly dedicated (and not wounded) he could have done a lot more damage. HOWEVER, I am concerned regarding the gray area and about slipping over the tipping point - and mostly I want for them to see me as one of the GOOD GUYS and would have their backs if they needed it. It's just a very slippery slope...
I have a HUGE dose of respect for those who choose LE as a profession and I see it an honorable one. Frankly, either way (too easy or too hard) and face armchair quarterbacking.
Think you can do it better sign up.
It does not take a man to throw unarmed women, children, and dogs out of their house with no shoes. Slam the up against their garage door with their hands on their head, who are obviously not the suspect.
I do not respect any LEO that participated in the clown show that took place in Watertown, and at the end of the day, after the martial law drill, the 19 year old badass (sarcasm), evaded the awesomeness of the 1,000+ Local and Federal retards, most whom, I am sure have no jurisdiction in that AO.
I don't know how many of you have trained on ranges with these types, but I am surprised there weren't a dozen or so, self inflicted or blue on blue incidents ... then again, maybe there were, since there were multiple times they scrambled out of camera view due to a call of "shots fired", and the incident is not covered by the media.... or they missed, because they suck at life.
I would have to imagine, from a certain point of view, this was a huge success for the bad guys, as every cop within a certain radius was contained in a small footprint. IF it had been a cell, it would have been a perfect time to do anything you wanted outside the dragnet... Lesson learned.
TriviaMonster
04-26-13, 13:38
Is it interesting to note that some think the Constitution can be overridden by those who are governed by it. Not in a legislative manner, but rather "for the cause". Quite the curiosity. I'll remember to override Osamacare when the time comes.
Also, remember Batman? He was breaking laws to catch criminals and authorities wanted him caught. This truly must've been a fictional New York.
Geez, you guys remember America? That place was the shit.
And not that it warrants a response, but we all wanted those criminals sickos caught, but I don't think anyone wanted to sign over their rights. I certainly wouldn't give my firstborn child to find them, so why would I give my inalienable rights? Molon Labe only part of what the Constitution guarantees me. Ha!
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
brickboy240
04-26-13, 13:48
The fact remains that ordinary citizens in the confines of their homes were treated like criminals.
Nobody mentions the guy that got dragged out of his house and the cops would not let him grab his damn shoes. If that happened to the cop's mothers or fathers...they'd be blowing a gasket.
Also who pays for the doors they tore down? I bet if I broke a window on a police cruiser, the department would make damn sure I paid for it. So it is just tough shit for the people with broken doors?
Property destroyed and people treated like criminals.
Poorly handled...any way you look at it.
-brickboy240
I do not respect any LEO that participated in the clown show that took place in Watertown, and at the end of the day, after the martial law drill, the 19 year old badass (sarcasm), evaded the awesomeness of the 1,000+ Local and Federal retards, most whom, I am sure have no jurisdiction in that AO.
I don't know how many of you have trained on ranges with these types, but I am surprised there weren't a dozen or so, self inflicted or blue on blue incidents ... then again, maybe there were, since there were multiple times they scrambled out of camera view due to a call of "shots fired", and the incident is not covered by the media.... or they missed, because they suck at life.
I would have to imagine, from a certain point of view, this was a huge success for the bad guys, as every cop within a certain radius was contained in a small footprint. IF it had been a cell, it would have been a perfect time to do anything you wanted outside the dragnet... Lesson learned.
Sad that you think the bolded statements are in keeping with the SME title that you were given. What a way to keep it classy...
The fact remains that ordinary citizens in the confines of their homes were treated like criminals.
Nobody mentions the guy that got dragged out of his house and the cops would not let him grab his damn shoes. If that happened to the cop's mothers or fathers...they'd be blowing a gasket.
Also who pays for the doors they tore down? I bet if I broke a window on a police cruiser, the department would make damn sure I paid for it. So it is just tough shit for the people with broken doors?
Property destroyed and people treated like criminals.
Poorly handled...any way you look at it.
-brickboy240
So you have established "facts" based on the statements of this person? You believe him when he says that the police entered his house unannounced?
brickboy240
04-26-13, 14:33
You immediately believe every citizen that talks to a reporter is lying?
You must be a cop.
I don't know but why would someone lie about something like that? If the cops did not let you get your shoes on...couldn't that be proved by others that saw you outside with bare feet?
I don't know if he is being honest but I have no proof they all are lying either.
-brickboy240
You immediately believe every citizen that talks to a reporter is lying?
You must be a cop.
I don't know but why would someone lie about something like that? If the cops did not let you get your shoes on...couldn't that be proved by others that saw you outside with bare feet?
I don't know if he is being honest but I have no proof they all are lying either.
-brickboy240
People exaggerate and intentionally lie in front of the camera all of the time. Sometimes it is just human nature wanting to have the best story, other times it is people with an agenda. Thus, I evaluate statements in the context of a situation. In this case, we have someone claiming that he awoke with the police in his home pointing a gun at him. Rather than accept this rather extraordinary statement (are there other people claiming this treatment?), I naturally ask questions about what must happen if this is to actually occur. In other words, the police would have to break into his house or be let in by another family member. A good reporter should have flushed this out.
As for breaking down doors, where did you hear this? Where are the pictures of these doors? Again, a good reporter should have pictures of the doors if the police actually broke in a dragged someone out of their house.
What I'm starting to see here is story creep - people adding extra details until you eventually have something that in no way resembles the actual facts. That happens with bias and let's face it, we all have our biases.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 14:47
Sad that you think the bolded statements are in keeping with the SME title that you were given. What a way to keep it classy...
So you have established "facts" based on the statements of this person? You believe him when he says that the police entered his house unannounced?
Announced or unannounced makes no difference. The police short of having consent or evidence Tsarnaev was in there shouldn't have gone in HIS house.
We've seen two major cluster ****s in as many months. Dorner, which I had the pleasure of seeing some of that first hand, and now Boston. Their are cops that are shaking their heads now at the lengths agencies are going in the name of "public safety". In several instances the police were the problem.
I am a LEO and I will continue to question such tactics. Like I said before it wasn't the cops busting doors that caught him, it was a citizen going about his business on his property.
Announced or unannounced makes no difference. The police short of having consent or evidence Tsarnaev was in there shouldn't have gone in HIS house.
We've seen two major cluster ****s in as many months. Dorner, which I had the pleasure of seeing some of that first hand, and now Boston. Their are cops that are shaking their heads now at the lengths agencies are going in the name of "public safety". In several instances the police were the problem.
I am a LEO and I will continue to question such tactics. Like I said before it wasn't the cops busting doors that caught him, it was a citizen going about his business on his property.
Uh, no. The guy killing people with bombs and guns was the problem. Also, the reason he was cowering in a boat was precisely due to 1) the fact that he was injured, and 2) the LE saturating the neighborhoods where they thought he was located. He just managed to go a few blocks beyond their parameter before he had to hunker down.
Since you are an LE, what precisely would you have done different to capture this guy?
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 15:09
Uh, no. The guy killing people with bombs and guns was the problem. Also, the reason he was cowering in a boat was precisely due to 1) the fact that he was injured, and 2) the LE saturating the neighborhoods where they thought he was located. He just managed to go a few blocks beyond their parameter before he had to hunker down.
Since you are an LE, what precisely would you have done different to capture this guy?
Fine I'll bite. I wouldn't bust into houses where I have no reason to believe he is there. Their "parameter" failed, period. Once again it was a CITIZEN that found him and caught him. The police warrantless entries did not! Yes, it sucks, but sometimes you have to wait for a lead.
But what exactly is it that you do in life? Seeing how you have no problem with these tactics that did not work.
ETA: there are two women who are receiving over $4 million of taxpayers money because police were the problem. There is an elderly gentleman who stands a good chance of receiving taxpayers money because police were the problem.
I took an oath. I gave my word. Catching badguys is great but at what cost? The right way caught Tsarnaev, the wrong way did not.
NCPatrolAR
04-26-13, 15:19
Fine I'll bite. I wouldn't bust into houses where I have no reason to believe he is there. Their "parameter" failed, period. Once again it was a CITIZEN that found him and caught him. The police warrantless entries did not! Yes, it sucks, but sometimes you have to wait for a lead.
But what exactly is it that you do in life? Seeing how you have no problem with these tactics that did not work.
ETA: there are two women who are receiving over $4 million of taxpayers money because police were the problem. There is an elderly gentleman who stands a good chance of receiving taxpayers money because police were the problem.
I took an oath. I gave my word. Catching badguys is great but at what cost? The right way caught Tsarnaev, the wrong way did not.
So are you saying the perimeter was a mistake?
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 15:25
So are you saying the perimeter was a mistake?
No. Breaking into houses is. He already made it past the perimeter. Exhausting manpower on illegal searches was a mistake.
NCPatrolAR
04-26-13, 15:42
No. Breaking into houses is. He already made it past the perimeter. Exhausting manpower on illegal searches was a mistake.
So how were they to know the suspect had escaped the perimeter and they should either expand the perimeter/continue the area search or breakdown the perimeter/cancel the area search?
So are you saying the perimeter was a mistake?
No, if I read what he's saying I think he said that the perimeter could have been widened/strengthened with the boots that were busy clearing houses that weren't suspected to be harboring ANYONE they were looking for. This whole situation was handled from entirely the wrong angle and I don't know what's worse, that those in power thought this was the best way to handle things when times got tough or that there are those with hindsight that are now defending what was done.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 15:58
So how were they to know the suspect had escaped the perimeter and they should either expand the perimeter/continue the area search or breakdown the perimeter/cancel the area search?
Well I guess by your reasoning through violating peoples rights. How would you have done it? The same way? **** those people right?
You are trying to argue a point that isn't being argued. The purpose of these posts is regarding the illegal entry and searches of peoples houses with no warrant and no probable cause. Not one person has argued about the perimeters. Nobody has argued about receiving consent to search a home. Nobody has argued open field searches around homes. People have argued about illegal entries with no warrants and no PC.
Do you or do you not follow the law?
No. Breaking into houses is. He already made it past the perimeter. Exhausting manpower on illegal searches was a mistake.
So tell me about this breaking into houses. I've seen 1 report of a guy who claims that the police woke him at gun point, but fails to provide details of how they got into his home. I've seen 3-4 other videos were people are being escorted out of their homes - again without any context if the police asked permission before making entry. I've seen 1 brief clip of someone being searched, but not at gunpoint and again with no context. Also, I've seen one picture of a state trooper with a weapon pointed at the photographer. Finally, I've seen about 20 reports of the police asking permission to search a residence, and then focusing their efforts only on potential hiding places such as closets and attics. The vast majority of these videos also show citizens thanking the police for their efforts.
What I've not see is any evidence of the police breaking into houses. That means I've not seen any broken doors, old ladies in hand cuffs, or teenage girls getting a body cavity search. You seem to be one of the few people repeating this line as if it was commonplace.
Where the cops aggressive? Yes, but there was a reasonable chance that the suspect fled to that neighborhood because he was being assisted by another citizen. That is why the police were safe and methodical in their efforts.
As for my background, I'm in a career field now that I do not discuss on open forums for PERSEC reasons.
So how were they to know the suspect had escaped the perimeter and they should either expand the perimeter/continue the area search or breakdown the perimeter/cancel the area search?
How bout this:
Knock, knock...
Homeowner: "Hello?"
LEO: "Hi, mam/sir. Have you seen anything suspicious around your property today?"
Homeowner: "No."
LEO: "Are you under any duress, forcing you to answer a specific way?"
Homeowner: "No."
LEO: "Mind if I check around your property just to be sure this POS isn't hiding somewhere?"
Homeowner: "Sure, no problem at all."
LEO: "Ok, thank you. Stay indoors if possible and be safe...oh and keep your firearm close by."
-----------------------------------------
How's that?
Don't you agree that that would be a much quicker, less invasive, Constitutional way of going about this business? You wouldn't have to search everyone, nor enter homes, nor remove people that obviously don't match the description of the BG from their homes. I would bet they could have covered twice as much ground as they did, and maybe even caught the guy without a mere civilian's help.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 16:01
Thanks Jer. Yes that is what I'm saying.
No. Breaking into houses is. He already made it past the perimeter. Exhausting manpower on illegal searches was a mistake.
Beat me to it.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 16:09
So tell me about this breaking into houses. I've seen 1 report of a guy who claims that the police woke him at gun point
As for my background, I'm in a career field now that I do not discuss on open forums for PERSEC reasons.
How do you think they got in the house? How many people saying it happened does it take? If every single house gave consent great. But if even one did not then there is a problem. If they can say we made entry because of x, y, z which gave us PC that he was in there, great. But if not then there is a problem.
You don't post what you do for PERSEC reasons yet anyone with any computer knowledge can find you. I didn't ask your name, DOB or SSN.
So tell me about this breaking into houses. I've seen 1 report of a guy who claims that the police woke him at gun point, but fails to provide details of how they got into his home. I've seen 3-4 other videos were people are being escorted out of their homes - again without any context if the police asked permission before making entry. I've seen 1 brief clip of someone being searched, but not at gunpoint and again with no context. Also, I've seen one picture of a state trooper with a weapon pointed at the photographer. Finally, I've seen about 20 reports of the police asking permission to search a residence, and then focusing their efforts only on potential hiding places such as closets and attics. The vast majority of these videos also show citizens thanking the police for their efforts.
What I've not see is any evidence of the police breaking into houses. That means I've not seen any broken doors, old ladies in hand cuffs, or teenage girls getting a body cavity search. You seem to be one of the few people repeating this line as if it was commonplace.
Where the cops aggressive? Yes, but there was a reasonable chance that the suspect fled to that neighborhood because he was being assisted by another citizen. That is why the police were safe and methodical in their efforts.
As for my background, I'm in a career field now that I do not discuss on open forums for PERSEC reasons.
So first they tell people to stay inside their homes. That's the safest place after all, right? So what PRESSING & IMMEDIATE THREAT OF EMINENT DANGER did they now have that negated a need for a warrant to pull people out of their homes (whether by gun point or not) to the streets where they already admitted it wasn't as safe on a sweeping multi-home area basis? THIS is what people have a problem with. Dude left his shoes as a result and some felt their had guns pointed AT them but even w/o concrete evidence of any of this... it's STILL not the problem here.
How bout this:
Knock, knock...
Homeowner: "Hello?"
LEO: "Hi, mam/sir. Have you seen anything suspicious around your property today?"
Homeowner: "No."
LEO: "Are you under any duress, forcing you to answer a specific way?"
Homeowner: "No."
LEO: "Mind if I check around your property just to be sure this POS isn't hiding somewhere?"
Homeowner: "Sure, no problem at all."
LEO: "Ok, thank you. Stay indoors if possible and be safe...oh and keep your firearm close by."
-----------------------------------------
How's that?
Don't you agree that that would be a much quicker, less invasive, Constitutional way of going about this business? You wouldn't have to search everyone, nor enter homes, nor remove people that obviously don't match the description of the BG from their homes. I would bet they could have covered twice as much ground as they did, and maybe even caught the guy without a mere civilian's help.
Exactly. I'll provide my own security in my home (and outside in other situations) and you do your job of apprehending bad guys within the confines of the US Constitution by any means afforded you w/o the requirement of 'stream lining' this or revoking that. Why is it that not only are our freedoms being sacrificed on a gradual basis when there is no immediate threat present but now whenever there is an immediate threat present it's the first thing tossed out the window? These rights are there 24/7/365 and the Constitution is in place to protect them during these stressful situations. Don't know what to do? Well than fall back on human rights protected by the Constitution and work forward from there. That's the whole point. Freedom comes with inherent danger but I'm not willing to exchange that for 'safety' in this case or ANY case. Liberty or death.
NCPatrolAR
04-26-13, 16:29
Well I guess by your reasoning through violating peoples rights. How would you have done it? The same way? **** those people right?
I strongly suggest you slow your roll and readjust your attitude meter. I'm trying to carry on an adult dialogue with you, but I can certainly change my tact if need be.
You are trying to argue a point that isn't being argued.
First, I'm not arguing anything.
Second, I'm asking clarifying questions to get a better feel of your point(s).
Do you or do you not follow the law?
I'll once again suggest you to back off the attitude
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 16:42
I strongly suggest you slow your roll and readjust your attitude meter. I'm trying to carry on an adult dialogue with you, but I can certainly change my tact if need be.
First, I'm not arguing anything.
Second, I'm asking clarifying questions to get a better feel of your point(s).
I'll once again suggest you to back off the attitude
Okay, you're coming out as arguementative. Even if you think you are not, you are. You have taken this tract in the past where you come out, are challenged, claim some infraction on the part of the other person. Then lock the thread, ban member or both.
Have you challenged any other posters to get their feel for their points? No, just mine.
So I will apologize if I have offended you.
I asked a question.
How would you have done it?
I strongly suggest you slow your roll and readjust your attitude meter. I'm trying to carry on an adult dialogue with you, but I can certainly change my tact if need be.
First, I'm not arguing anything.
Second, I'm asking clarifying questions to get a better feel of your point(s).
I'll once again suggest you to back off the attitude
That's attitude? I read it as an adult conversation and questions just like the rest of us were having.
NCPatrolAR
04-26-13, 16:46
How bout this:
Knock, knock...
Homeowner: "Hello?"
LEO: "Hi, mam/sir. Have you seen anything suspicious around your property today?"
Homeowner: "No."
LEO: "Are you under any duress, forcing you to answer a specific way?"
Homeowner: "No."
LEO: "Mind if I check around your property just to be sure this POS isn't hiding somewhere?"
Homeowner: "Sure, no problem at all."
LEO: "Ok, thank you. Stay indoors if possible and be safe...oh and keep your firearm close by."
-----------------------------------------
Werent most of the interactions conducted along those lines?
TriviaMonster
04-26-13, 16:52
No. Breaking into houses is. He already made it past the perimeter. Exhausting manpower on illegal searches was a mistake.
I think this kind of sums up the feelings a lot of us are having. Since this is the world we live in, we need less violating rights and more Police education and research.
Better educated cops and task forces are better cops and task forces. Going forward I hope we learn from this glaring mistake. Cops need to fight for research grants and they need our help. I'll gladly pay more taxes knowing my Constitutional rights will be safe and criminals will be at odds with true dog catchers. And by research, I don't mean more intrusive technology. I mean better ways to fight the fire with what we've got.
Look at what we learned from the KCMO Police Study in the 1970s (not relevant to the topic at hand, just an example of fine research for PD's), mind blowing. This is what we need today, groundbreaking study that nets real results.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 2
Werent most of the interactions conducted along those lines?
From the sounds of it, no. I think that's what lots of people are upset over. The atmosphere doesn't sound like it was anything like that.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 16:54
Werent most of the interactions conducted along those lines?
If they were great. See above posts.
The OP is concerned regarding the ones that were not. As are other posters.
I'll submit this. The Riverside SO did an outstanding job on the Dorner manhunt. Primarily because they searched house to house but did not waste time or manpower trying to force entry to residences.
Consent search, cool.
Probable cause, cool.
Warrant, cool.
We are concerned with trying to stretch a specific exigency to allow more invasive searches of peoples homes.
Werent most of the interactions conducted along those lines?
I would like to give LEOs the benefit of the doubt and say that most were, but we probably wouldn't be having this discussion if at least SOME weren't. Even if it is a minuscule amount of instances, just one breach of the Constitution would be too many and needs to be nipped in the bud IMO....because I highly doubt that this will be the last time you see something like this, and would hate for this to become common practice.
NCPatrolAR
04-26-13, 17:52
Okay, you're coming out as arguementative.
So asking a total of two questions free of obscenities and questioning of someone's professional ethics is argumentative? Most interesting.
You have taken this tract in the past where you come out, are challenged, claim some infraction on the part of the other person. Then lock the thread, ban member or both.
:rolleyes:
Regardless; if you have an issue with how moderation is performed here, feel free to contact one of the Staff or Senior Staff members. They will help you resolve your problem.
Have you challenged any other posters to get their feel for their points? No, just mine.
I didn't realize that I had to go back through the entire thread and challenge every point that was made. I was asking you questions because I opened the thread up on page 4, saw your comment, and asked my initial question.
How would you have done it?
I'll start by saying that I have no idea what kind of information that they were working with. I see no issue with the establishment of large perimeter and sending officers through the area to conduct detailed searches, speak with residents, etc. When it came to asking for consent to search, I would expect officers to do if things seemed off about the resident/residence and let them go from there. For homes where no one answered the door; I would expect the officers to pay great detail to the conditions/situation and go from there. For houses where consent to search was denied and nothing seemed odd I would expect the officers to push on to the next residence.
Of course while all of that was going on I'd have guys pulling intel (camera footage, suspect info, etc), trying to ping the suspect's phone (if possible), etc
NCPatrolAR
04-26-13, 18:00
From the sounds of it, no.
While I havent followed the story closely; the few things I've seen/read have been the exact opposite. The calls of rights violations have been well in the minority to the point that even the ACLU hadnt had anything reported to them (last I read).
threeheadeddog
04-26-13, 18:35
While I havent followed the story closely; the few things I've seen/read have been the exact opposite. The calls of rights violations have been well in the minority to the point that even the ACLU hadnt had anything reported to them (last I read).
Really, I think much of this argument(i mean the thread in general) is mostly an argument about the realities of just how little the Constitition actually protects us when the rubber hits the road. In the moment of infringement there is no protection to the people except the integrity of the LEO at ones door.
For people like yourself (reguarding you statements on what you would do) this is of no concern, because you would do the right thing if at someons door. For people like Alaskapopo who have continually shown distain for "civies" and a willingness to disreguard the intent of the Constitution because it has been deemed "legal" or is something he believes justifies the meens there needs to be hard protections to the citizen.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 18:37
So asking a total of two questions free of obscenities and questioning of someone's professional ethics is argumentative? Most interesting.
:rolleyes:
Regardless; if you have an issue with how moderation is performed here, feel free to contact one of the Staff or Senior Staff members. They will help you resolve your problem.
Why? It was brought up to you.
I didn't realize that I had to go back through the entire thread and challenge every point that was made. I was asking you questions because I opened the thread up on page 4, saw your comment, and asked my initial question.
So you come in at the very last statement. You have no context of what is being said or what it is in reference to, and some how I'm to blame. Yes read every post.
I'll start by saying that I have no idea what kind of information that they were working with. I see no issue with the establishment of large perimeter and sending officers through the area to conduct detailed searches, speak with residents, etc. When it came to asking for consent to search, I would expect officers to do if things seemed off about the resident/residence and let them go from there. For homes where no one answered the door; I would expect the officers to pay great detail to the conditions/situation and go from there. For houses where consent to search was denied and nothing seemed odd I would expect the officers to push on to the next residence.
Of course while all of that was going on I'd have guys pulling intel (camera footage, suspect info, etc), trying to ping the suspect's phone (if possible), etc
So you are parroting what has been said in the previous posts but because you did not bother to read any of them you have no idea where to fall on this issue or who you should be asking questions of.
Again issues with entering houses. The perimeter has not been called into question. Consent searches have not been called into question.
Voodoochild
04-26-13, 19:43
So we are basing all this on one youtube video? If the police were in the wrong then the residents of said homes have ample resources to press the issue. Now with that being said xrayoneone do you expect all mods to go through every single thread and read every single post? If we did that there wouldn't be much going on with the modding because we would be busy reading until our eyes bleed.
The Mod you are arguing with in question happens to be a retired NC LEO. And has ample experience and knowledge regarding situations where searches are needed and how to go about them.
What happened in Water Town was a fluid and rapidly developing situation no one knew WTF was going on and where the younger brother went.
You have two guys who dropped IEDs at a Marathon then disappear. Next thing you know you got a MIT officer killed and a guy carjacked. A shoot out with police one dead bomber with a bomb vest on him and the brother bailed.
Please tell us all how you as a LEO would handle the situation where intel is coming in at a rapid pace and you have God only knows how many agencies and departments involved. Radio's are going ape shit and so much panic and fear is thick in the air you could cut it with a spork.
retards
...because they suck at life.
Sad that you think the bolded statements are in keeping with the SME title that you were given. What a way to keep it classy...
Classy, like the "gentlemen" that terrorized the people of an entire town and conducted warrant-less searches, including strong arming people who clearly were not a 19 year old Chechen boy.
I am sure that getting the chance to finally put all that cool kit on and run around with all your buddies maybe caused things to get a bit out of control, but that is no excuse for a clear violation of the rights of average American citizens minding their own business.
Sucking at life and violating the trust of the people who pay your salary go hand in hand.
You are comparing cars to houses. Courts have always ruled different in regards to what is reasonable in cars as opposed to your REP in your house. And yes because they mentioned several factors in the court case including:
A vehicle traveling at 30-40 mph.
The GPS tracker that was able to PIN POINT a SPECIFIC location to a few cars, though not the EXACT car.
An UNKNOWN subject.
Given TIME the police would have been able to find the exact car through GPS and surveillance.
Your case is flawed in regards to randomly busting in doors regarding hot pursuit. I cited the exact court case that that exigent circumstance came from. Read WARDEN V. HAYDEN and you will immediately see the differences, cars, and similarities, probable cause suspect is in a specific place. If the police randomly started searching ALL cars on that road it would be more relevant to this conversation. The police had no more probable cause that Tsarnaev was in a house as he had fled the scene. The point in fact is Tsarnaev WAS NOT in a house and had fled the scene. Warden V Hayden specifically states you need PROBABLE CAUSE subject is in the house before entry. What we clearly see is NO PROBABLE CAUSE as the cops were hitting ALL doors. Tsarnaev could no more be in ALL houses as he could domesticate a unicorn and fly to Jupiter.
There are two types of cops here. Those who see this as a disturbing expansion of government invasion into peoples houses. And those that see it as a great expansion of their ability to enter into peoples homes without a warrant.
You need to ask yourself, "what next?" Yes he was a terrorist but is that where it stops? No. The next cop that is shot or killed they will say if someone is willing to hurt a cop they're willing to hurt anyone! Then they'll cite this and start banging random doors. Then it will expand to any murders, assaults, robberies, etc. until or if a court rules against it.
I have read Hayden, AND all of the SCOTUS and Appellate rulings SINCE Hayden pertaining to exigent circumstances. You may want to take a look as there are several rulings pertaining to exigent circumstances and public safety and the role of LE in protecting the public. There are also numerous rulings from SCOTUS and the Appellate Courts concerning the "community caretaking" function of police and exigent circumstance, several of which were quoted in the case I posted previously. You'll find that SCOTUS gives LE great latitude when it comes to entries for protection of the public. SCOTUS has also shown a great displeasure for the lower courts who have second-guessed LE in these circumstances.
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 19:57
retards
...because they suck at life.
Classy, like the "gentlemen" that terrorized the people of an entire town and conducted warrant-less searches, including strong arming people who clearly were not a 19 year old Chechen boy.
I am sure that getting the chance to finally put all that cool kit on and run around with all your buddies maybe caused things to get a bit out of control, but that is no excuse for a clear violation of the rights of average American citizens minding their own business.
Sucking at life and violating the trust of the people who pay your salary go hand in hand.
No I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact citizens were killed and injuried and a police officer and two terrorists were on the loose. :rolleyes:
At the end of the day the police in Boston did a good job. They caught the bad guys and prevented further loss of life.
Pat
Really, I think much of this argument(i mean the thread in general) is mostly an argument about the realities of just how little the Constitition actually protects us when the rubber hits the road. In the moment of infringement there is no protection to the people except the integrity of the LEO at ones door.
For people like yourself (reguarding you statements on what you would do) this is of no concern, because you would do the right thing if at someons door. For people like Alaskapopo who have continually shown distain for "civies" and a willingness to disreguard the intent of the Constitution because it has been deemed "legal" or is something he believes justifies the meens there needs to be hard protections to the citizen.
That's a real interesting point about Constitutional protections. I see the Constitution as being designed and very effective at protecting citizens from tyrannical prosecution by an over-reaching government. While I'd agree that some right to privacy is implied by portions of the Constitution, I don't see this as being always superior to LE's ability to conduct investigations were there is a pressing public safety concern. This is what separates me from many members of the forum who want the Constitution to convey a powerful right to privacy. That is to say, I might be more concerned about 4th Amendment protections if I believed in incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and the police were using these searches to prosecute the actual homeowner's of crimes.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 20:09
They caught the bad guys and prevented further loss of life.
Pat
A citizen found the bad guy.
Voodoo I am well aware of who NC is. I can throw a rock and hit ten cops with as much or more experience.
Your question has little bearing on the OP and I have answered it in previous posts. There are bad guys running around everyday. Some use bombs some use guns.
If we want to discuss tactics let's do that. How would you handle it?
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 20:14
A citizen found the bad guy.
Voodoo I am well aware of who NC is. I can throw a rock and hit ten cops with as much or more experience.
Your question has little bearing on the OP and I have answered it in previous posts. There are bad guys running around everyday. Some use bombs some use guns.
If we want to discuss tactics let's do that. How would you handle it?
That is how things are supposed to work. The police and the community work hand in hand to stop and catch the bad guys.
Pat
I do not respect any LEO that participated in the clown show that took place in Watertown, and at the end of the day, after the martial law drill, the 19 year old badass (sarcasm), evaded the awesomeness of the 1,000+ Local and Federal retards, most whom, I am sure have no jurisdiction in that AO.
I don't know how many of you have trained on ranges with these types, but I am surprised there weren't a dozen or so, self inflicted or blue on blue incidents ... then again, maybe there were, since there were multiple times they scrambled out of camera view due to a call of "shots fired", and the incident is not covered by the media.... or they missed, because they suck at life.
I would have to imagine, from a certain point of view, this was a huge success for the bad guys, as every cop within a certain radius was contained in a small footprint. IF it had been a cell, it would have been a perfect time to do anything you wanted outside the dragnet... Lesson learned.
retards
...because they suck at life.
Classy, like the "gentlemen" that terrorized the people of an entire town and conducted warrant-less searches, including strong arming people who clearly were not a 19 year old Chechen boy.
I am sure that getting the chance to finally put all that cool kit on and run around with all your buddies maybe caused things to get a bit out of control, but that is no excuse for a clear violation of the rights of average American citizens minding their own business.
Sucking at life and violating the trust of the people who pay your salary go hand in hand.
Did Sean Collier suck at life? Was Richard Donohue retarded?
Think before you write.
xrayoneone
04-26-13, 20:58
That is how things are supposed to work. The police and the community work hand in hand to stop and catch the bad guys.
Pat
NO SHIT! We are on the very same page here!
But you will not have community working together with LEOs long if they are treated like they live in Iraq.
We have a line regarding search and seizure. Each year it is pushed back. We've seen it erode drastically since 2001. This is not good.
These guys lit off three bombs and it is terrible. Many here are failing to see the tactic used. It isn't against the people directly but against our way of life.
ETA: Had they not found Douchebagiev and they continued on this path you would be hearing a very different sound coming from Boston. Lack of the ACLU speaking out proves nothing. Lawyers have their own reasons for things but after money, loosing a case and creating shitty case law is at the top. Look at the 180 turn that some people had towards LAPD during the Dorner bullshit, or the idiot school cop that shot himself.
Saying it is for "public safety" is no different than saying "it is for the children".
No I am sure it had nothing to do with the fact citizens were killed and injuried and a police officer and two terrorists were on the loose. :rolleyes:
At the end of the day the police in Boston did a good job. They caught the bad guys and prevented further loss of life.
Pat
Look, I have participated in, planned and been a team leader in dozens of cordon and search/sweep operations in non-permissive environments in both Afghanistan and Iraq for medium and high value targets.
None of those missions required either the number of people or the force projection used in this situation.
What happened in Watertown was a travesty, non-permissive TTP's in a completely permissive environment, something we would never do overseas as that would have made people hate US forces and do nothing but create more terrorists.
Apparently not a factor in the minds of state and federal law enforcement. I am embarrassed for this country if this is the entitlement LEO's feel they have and the regard/knowledge they showed for the Constitution.
I am not sure what other motivating factors were in play for the clown show that took place but I am sure if patrol presence was increased and HRT was in a standby location, the result would have been the same minus the COIN failure.
Did Sean Collier suck at life? Was Richard Donohue retarded?
Think before you write.
Didn't know them.
Tell me, can you name the two most recent causalities in Afghanistan, and do you hold them in the same regard?
I have lost so many good buddies overseas that at this point the fact that two cops were rolled up by a couple of untrained jihadists doesn't have much of an impact on my emotions.
ForTehNguyen
04-26-13, 22:10
Boston PD was foolish to get people to shelter in place and then waste tons of resources going door to door in their houses. Their most powerful resource is the public. The police cant even come close to the sheer manpower and resources the public has at its disposal. What if they couldnt find this guy for weeks, just going to keep doing this crap for weeks on end? All these tac teams, equipment, and armored vehicles and guess who ends up finding him, some old man checking on his boat. If that had actually let the public help search for him probably wouldve resolved itself faster.
SWATcop556
04-26-13, 22:13
Tell me, can you name the two most recent causalities in Afghanistan, and do you hold them in the same regard.
Just as I'm sure you can't name the last two most recent officers killed. We all have felt loss here or over seas. Some both. On the 4year anniversary of my Corporal's line of duty death this hits close to home.
To minimize either is disingenuous at best. Neither your loss or mine is more or less significant no matter the skill set or where the blood fell.
Didn't know them.
Tell me, can you name the two most recent causalities in Afghanistan, and do you hold them in the same regard?
I have lost so many good buddies overseas that at this point the fact that two cops were rolled up by a couple of untrained jihadists doesn't have much of an impact on my emotions.
Nor did you know any of the other LEO's involved in this incident, but that didn't seem to stop you from calling them retards and claiming that they suck at life.
As for your combat experience desensitizing your emotions and causing you to come across as a sociopath, get some professional help. You'll be a happier person and less of a liability to people who care about you.
Those who take away rights and liberties in the name of preserving the same should be treated as terrorists themselves. Literally.
That is all.
SWATcop556
04-26-13, 22:40
Guys this needs to get back on topic and fast. This one is about done.
Just as I'm sure you can't name the last two most recent officers killed. We all have felt loss here or over seas. Some both. On the 4year anniversary of my Corporal's line of duty death this hits close to home.
To minimize either is disingenuous at best. Neither your loss or mine is more or less significant no matter the skill set or where the blood fell.
Well said.
I apologize.
But still is not a reason to trample the 4th Amendment.
I deployed with the idea that I was protecting my country, loved ones and property, if this is the end state then I (and those I have lost) have accomplished nothing.
ETA: Sry SWATcop556, I'm off my soapbox.
SWATcop556
04-26-13, 22:50
Well said.
I apologize.
But still is not a reason to trample the 4th Amendment.
I deployed with the idea that I was protecting my country, loved ones and property, if this is the end state then I (and those I have lost) have accomplished nothing.
ETA: Sry SWATcop556, I'm off my soapbox.
No worries my friend. I know we can all get very passionate and no one is immune. I don't necessarily agree with how the situation was handled either. Dragging people out of their houses at gun point is a no go. You can have uniforms doing knock and talks with Tac on standby. There are much better ways to accomplish the same goal but that is just IMHO.
While I havent followed the story closely; the few things I've seen/read have been the exact opposite. The calls of rights violations have been well in the minority to the point that even the ACLU hadnt had anything reported to them (last I read).
I'd say this might have as much to do with the locale as anything. Those same TTP's being utilized in other areas of the country might get a lot more scrutiny, not to mention being significantly more dangerous to everyone involved, due to a higher number of well armed residents who take responsibility for the inside of their homes. Just food for thought.
Alaskapopo
04-26-13, 23:25
Look, I have participated in, planned and been a team leader in dozens of cordon and search/sweep operations in non-permissive environments in both Afghanistan and Iraq for medium and high value targets.
None of those missions required either the number of people or the force projection used in this situation.
What happened in Watertown was a travesty, non-permissive TTP's in a completely permissive environment, something we would never do overseas as that would have made people hate US forces and do nothing but create more terrorists.
Apparently not a factor in the minds of state and federal law enforcement. I am embarrassed for this country if this is the entitlement LEO's feel they have and the regard/knowledge they showed for the Constitution.
I am not sure what other motivating factors were in play for the clown show that took place but I am sure if patrol presence was increased and HRT was in a standby location, the result would have been the same minus the COIN failure.
Thanks for your service but your experience in Afghanistan and Iraq does not make you qualified to judge LEO's. Different job, different tools different rules. Just as a LEO is not qualified to judge what soldiers do over in Iraq and Afganistan.
Pat
I'm not going to argue 4th Amendment exemptions here....fwiw, I don't think exigent circumstances is the route to go....I do see the public safety route...I don't think the public safety exemption to the 4th amendment justifies the way we saw those people put against their home and searched.....
As for the ACLU not doing anything....the key word is yet....there is a cooling off period that is appropriate here that just about anyone would respect....not a lot of people are quick to criticize how a terrorist event was handled, publicly at least, less than 2 weeks after it occurred....I don't consider an anonymous Internet forum "publicly"
I will venture that this is a conversation that needs to happen quickly, though. Bloomberg is already talking about modifying how we interpret the Constitution in regards to our response to terrorism. Is it possible we have already seen that done by these officers in Watertown? Absolutely.
To build on some of these members concerns, let us change the circumstances slightly.
What if, rather than Watertown, this happened in Highlands Ranch, Texas, outside Dallas, or here in Manassas, VA outside DC. If I answer my door, and within reach inside is a firearm, how does that video change? What if I'm visibly armed when I answer the door? I think the problem is most people envision that very scenario, and their answer, at best, is "I don't know."
The concern is, if this becomes par for the course, with parameters so loosely defined, there is a wide variation of what can happen in these circumstances, and people do not want uncertainty when it involves their rights and, bluntly, when someone could be pointing a gun at them.
And, I don't remember who said it, but what constitutes exceptions to unreasonable search is absolutely not loosely defined. It is specifically defined intentionally. Different scenarios evolve within those exceptions, and are litigated, and allowed or disallowed routinely. But the default answer is NO. Are we rapidly approaching a point where there are so many exceptions within exceptions as to render the protections of the fourth moot? Possibly.
But no one, law enforcement or otherwise, should be comfortable with what they saw in that video. Understand it? Ok. I understand it. But we should absolutely question whether or not it was constitutional, and make sure the answer is clear so, if it wasn't, it doesn't happen again should similar circumstances arise.
For what it's worth, I DID graduate magna cum laude from a tier one law school, I am a member of the Virginia Bar, and once upon a time my focus of study and practice was Constitutional Law.
I also have been known to talk out of my ass :). Plus, since I have been a stay at home Dad now for two children it is just as likely I just described how to most effectively change a diaper while doing a fifth grade science project and driving to basketball practice.
Thanks for your service but your experience in Afghanistan and Iraq does not make you qualified to judge LEO's. Different job, different tools different rules. Just as a LEO is not qualified to judge what soldiers do over in Iraq and Afganistan.
Pat
So you're saying civilians can't decide what is or is not OK for leo/mil to do? Even though leo/mil serve the civilian population?
Look, I have participated in, planned and been a team leader in dozens of cordon and search/sweep operations in non-permissive environments in both Afghanistan and Iraq for medium and high value targets.
None of those missions required either the number of people or the force projection used in this situation.
What happened in Watertown was a travesty, non-permissive TTP's in a completely permissive environment, something we would never do overseas as that would have made people hate US forces and do nothing but create more terrorists.
Apparently not a factor in the minds of state and federal law enforcement. I am embarrassed for this country if this is the entitlement LEO's feel they have and the regard/knowledge they showed for the Constitution.
I am not sure what other motivating factors were in play for the clown show that took place but I am sure if patrol presence was increased and HRT was in a standby location, the result would have been the same minus the COIN failure.
Well said.
Words to ponder,
"The police on an occasion calling for fast action have obligations that tend to tug against each other. Their duty is to restore and maintain lawful order, while not exacerbating disorder more than necessary to do their jobs. They are supposed to act decisively and to show restraint at the same moment, and their decisions have to be made in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.”
Words to ponder,
"The police on an occasion calling for fast action have obligations that tend to tug against each other. Their duty is to restore and maintain lawful order, while not exacerbating disorder more than necessary to do their jobs. They are supposed to act decisively and to show restraint at the same moment, and their decisions have to be made in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.”
Yeah, it's a tough job. I get that. That doesn't mean stuff like this is permissible and it seems as though it's getting more and not less frequent as times get tougher. I'm scared to think of how we would be treated if there was a total economic collapse tomorrow if this is how they handle a couple of teenagers with horribly inefficient bombs. It's not bad enough we have to worry about how dangerous life has become but now we have to worry about those sworn to protect us from those evils just in case they're having a particularly stressful day at work? Something doesn't sit right with me on that.
FromMyColdDeadHand
04-27-13, 00:33
We all appreciate the job that law enforcement officers do. Crappy hours, crappy pay, crappy people all day long. We just, and maybe people on this forum more than most because we take an active roll in safety, look at the actions of LEOs in the context of our own lives. LEOs see the world thru their more dangerous encounter and want to get their job done as fast and safely as possible. There are bound to be disagreements.
If I ever where in Alaska I'd love to buy AlaskaPoPo a beer, I might not stick around for the conversation, I'm just not that fond of hanging out in gay bars ;)
But seriously, there are enough crazies, jihadis, commies out there for all of us to shoot- we don't need to snipe at each other.
Alaskapopo
04-27-13, 00:40
So you're saying civilians can't decide what is or is not OK for leo/mil to do? Even though leo/mil serve the civilian population?
What I am saying is you should not judge things you don't understand.
Pat
........... if this is how they handle a couple of teenagers with horribly inefficient bombs......
Hindsight is a wonderful thing. Luckily, SCOTUS has no interest in it when judging LE actions.
A good reporter should have flushed this out.
They sure could have, unfortunately that's a significant part of the problem, particularly surrounding the totalitarian orgasm that was Watertown. We no longer have any significant effort by the powerful national information monopolies once referred to as "the media," to hold the feet of the state to the fire, on the contrary, they have become the "state!"
Watertown was every bit as shocking as was 9/11...I have not the words to describe my dismay over the outrageous nature of the states overreach there, when Bostonians lined the streets to cheer them for it, I was horrified speechless...
What I am saying is you should not judge things you don't understand.
Pat
So then there should be no civilian oversight of the military nor of the police unless you're a veteran?
Although written for specifically for New York, the author makes some interesting points worth pondering, I have excerpted a few, the rest can be found at the link. Bold emphasis is mine.
......Ordinarily the factors to consider in determining if there are exigent circumstances for a police entry are (1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect 'is reasonably believed to be armed'; (3) 'a clear showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime'; (4) 'strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered'; (5) 'a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended'; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry. The existence of several, even if not all, of the factors is enough to establish the exigent circumstances of a warrantless police entry. The federal courts have referred to this as the “Dorman factors”. In New York they have been referred to as the “Cruz criteria”. These factors are meant to “assist a suppression court in its analysis of whether exigent circumstances are present” but these factors are neither “definitive” nor “exhaustive” and a suppression court is permitted to consider other facts that suggest an “urgent need that justifies a warrantless entry.” A finding of several of these factors, and sometimes even just one, has justified a finding of exigent circumstances in both New York and Federal cases.
Evaluation of exigent circumstances do not always require a Dorman/Cruz analysis. There are other factors which New York Courts have considered dispositive of exigent circumstances. Such circumstances include only the likelihood that the suspect would escape, threat of danger to the police officers on the scene, immediate need for assistance for the protection of life or property, * threatened destruction of incriminating evidence, and hot pursuit of a suspect . When these circumstances manifest, courts have found exigent circumstances without referencing or even alluding to the Dorman/Cruz factors. The Federal Courts have likewise found “urgent need” in a variety of situations including protecting evidence, putting out an ongoing fire, hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, and assisting persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. In some cases, both New York Courts and Federal Courts have found exigency using a combination of the Dorman/Cruz factors and other “relevant” factors. For instance a finding of several but not all of the Dorman/Cruz factors including a failure to find “a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended” could still lead to a finding of exigent circumstances when buttressed by non-Dorman/Cruz factors like a dangerous and volatile situation, danger to other occupants and initiating arrest in a public place . There are several New York and Federal cases where the courts make mention of the Dorman/Cruz factors but without conducting any Dorman/Cruz analysis as to whether or not these factors existed in the specific case.
In New York State, a warrantless search of a defendant’s residence can be permissible if triggered in response to an emergency situation. The New York doctrine on emergency situations arises from People v. Mitchell, 347 N.E.2d 607 (N.Y. 1976). The test for whether police conduct passes constitutional muster requires that (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. And (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched. The permissibility of police conduct derives from a police officer’s legitimate role as “community caretakers” and is distinct from their role as “criminal investigators”. An emergency that concerns the health and welfare of the general public is a subset of community caretaking. The emergency situation exception also exists in federal jurisprudence. Federal law recognizes that community caretaking functions are “wholly separate from detecting, investigation, or acquiring evidence of a crime.” The Federal Ninth Circuit for example recognizes that there are “two general exceptions to the warrant requirement for home searches: exigency and emergency” and that emergency stems from community caretaking while exigency stems from police investigatory function. Police who operate under the emergency exception may enter a home to investigate an emergency that threatens life or limb”. There is also an implied fourth prong requiring a tailored response to the nature of the emergency.
Under the first prong, police in New York must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency. Reasonable grounds must be based on “objective”, empirical facts. The subjective belief of police officers is not enough to establish that there is an emergency. However the “reasonable grounds” test is considered lighter than the “general probable cause” analysis. While the vast majority of emergency situations involve human lives in jeopardy, there is one case People v. Boyd, 474 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) which has suggested that an emergency is “any sudden, unexpected state of affairs that calls for immediate action”, and therefore extends the emergency doctrine. So far no court has cited the Boyd definition of “emergency” in the Fourth Amendment context. Regarding the second prong, under traditional New York jurisprudence, there was a rebuttable inference that “an entry which results in an arrest or seizure of evidence was for the purpose of effecting an arrest or seizure”. However not all New York Courts agree. Other courts believe that the subjective intent of the police is to be determined by the police’s stated reasons for the conduct and the objectives facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct.............
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CC0QFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fcontext%2Fjacob_chen%2Farticle%2F1000%2Ftype%2Fnative%2Fviewcontent&ei=u2h7UYjeJOWp2QXw6oHgBw&usg=AFQjCNERrLIB2Z1LNPAeeZRvqanWYtlwsA&bvm=bv.45645796,d.b2I&cad=rja
So then there should be no civilian oversight of the military nor of the police unless you're a veteran?
Much in the same manner a brain surgeon isn't qualified to perform the procedure until he's done the very procedure on himself. Or I can't spot an annoying child if I don't have children. Sometimes, just sometimes, common sense is all the experience you need and this is one of those.
Although written for specifically for New York, the author makes some interesting points worth pondering, I have excerpted a few, the rest can be found at the link. Bold emphasis is mine.
......Ordinarily the factors to consider in determining if there are exigent circumstances for a police entry are (1) the gravity or violent nature of the offense with which the suspect is to be charged; (2) whether the suspect 'is reasonably believed to be armed'; (3) 'a clear showing of probable cause to believe that the suspect committed the crime'; (4) 'strong reason to believe that the suspect is in the premises being entered'; (5) 'a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended'; and (6) the peaceful circumstances of the entry. The existence of several, even if not all, of the factors is enough to establish the exigent circumstances of a warrantless police entry. The federal courts have referred to this as the “Dorman factors”. In New York they have been referred to as the “Cruz criteria”. These factors are meant to “assist a suppression court in its analysis of whether exigent circumstances are present” but these factors are neither “definitive” nor “exhaustive” and a suppression court is permitted to consider other facts that suggest an “urgent need that justifies a warrantless entry.” A finding of several of these factors, and sometimes even just one, has justified a finding of exigent circumstances in both New York and Federal cases.
Evaluation of exigent circumstances do not always require a Dorman/Cruz analysis. There are other factors which New York Courts have considered dispositive of exigent circumstances. Such circumstances include only the likelihood that the suspect would escape, threat of danger to the police officers on the scene, immediate need for assistance for the protection of life or property, * threatened destruction of incriminating evidence, and hot pursuit of a suspect . When these circumstances manifest, courts have found exigent circumstances without referencing or even alluding to the Dorman/Cruz factors. The Federal Courts have likewise found “urgent need” in a variety of situations including protecting evidence, putting out an ongoing fire, hot pursuit of a fleeing felon, and assisting persons who are seriously injured or threatened with such injury. In some cases, both New York Courts and Federal Courts have found exigency using a combination of the Dorman/Cruz factors and other “relevant” factors. For instance a finding of several but not all of the Dorman/Cruz factors including a failure to find “a likelihood that the suspect will escape if not swiftly apprehended” could still lead to a finding of exigent circumstances when buttressed by non-Dorman/Cruz factors like a dangerous and volatile situation, danger to other occupants and initiating arrest in a public place . There are several New York and Federal cases where the courts make mention of the Dorman/Cruz factors but without conducting any Dorman/Cruz analysis as to whether or not these factors existed in the specific case.
In New York State, a warrantless search of a defendant’s residence can be permissible if triggered in response to an emergency situation. The New York doctrine on emergency situations arises from People v. Mitchell, 347 N.E.2d 607 (N.Y. 1976). The test for whether police conduct passes constitutional muster requires that (1) The police must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency at hand and an immediate need for their assistance for the protection of life or property. (2) The search must not be primarily motivated by intent to arrest and seize evidence. And (3) there must be some reasonable basis, approximating probable cause, to associate the emergency with the area or place to be searched. The permissibility of police conduct derives from a police officer’s legitimate role as “community caretakers” and is distinct from their role as “criminal investigators”. An emergency that concerns the health and welfare of the general public is a subset of community caretaking. The emergency situation exception also exists in federal jurisprudence. Federal law recognizes that community caretaking functions are “wholly separate from detecting, investigation, or acquiring evidence of a crime.” The Federal Ninth Circuit for example recognizes that there are “two general exceptions to the warrant requirement for home searches: exigency and emergency” and that emergency stems from community caretaking while exigency stems from police investigatory function. Police who operate under the emergency exception may enter a home to investigate an emergency that threatens life or limb”. There is also an implied fourth prong requiring a tailored response to the nature of the emergency.
Under the first prong, police in New York must have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an emergency. Reasonable grounds must be based on “objective”, empirical facts. The subjective belief of police officers is not enough to establish that there is an emergency. However the “reasonable grounds” test is considered lighter than the “general probable cause” analysis. While the vast majority of emergency situations involve human lives in jeopardy, there is one case People v. Boyd, 474 N.Y.S.2d 661 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 1984) which has suggested that an emergency is “any sudden, unexpected state of affairs that calls for immediate action”, and therefore extends the emergency doctrine. So far no court has cited the Boyd definition of “emergency” in the Fourth Amendment context. Regarding the second prong, under traditional New York jurisprudence, there was a rebuttable inference that “an entry which results in an arrest or seizure of evidence was for the purpose of effecting an arrest or seizure”. However not all New York Courts agree. Other courts believe that the subjective intent of the police is to be determined by the police’s stated reasons for the conduct and the objectives facts and circumstances surrounding the conduct.............
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=21&ved=0CC0QFjAAOBQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fworks.bepress.com%2Fcontext%2Fjacob_chen%2Farticle%2F1000%2Ftype%2Fnative%2Fviewcontent&ei=u2h7UYjeJOWp2QXw6oHgBw&usg=AFQjCNERrLIB2Z1LNPAeeZRvqanWYtlwsA&bvm=bv.45645796,d.b2I&cad=rja
NY? Those the same guys that tried to turn those who drink 16oz soft drinks into criminals before a court told them they were overstepping their boundaries? Yeah, I think I'll pass on reading anything they have to say on any topic ever. Sorry.
Alaskapopo
04-27-13, 01:32
So then there should be no civilian oversight of the military nor of the police unless you're a veteran?
There are people qualified to judge the actions of the police and military such as the courts, the chain of command etc. But the average internet poster with no training in such matters other than watching Law and Order no I don't think so.
Pat
Alaskapopo
04-27-13, 01:32
NY? Those the same guys that tried to turn those who drink 16oz soft drinks into criminals before a court told them they were overstepping their boundaries? Yeah, I think I'll pass on reading anything they have to say on any topic ever. Sorry.
So you think you know more than the courts and to think you called me arrogant. lol.
Pat
There you go making blanket statements again. If I don't support every single move every single officer makes I can't support anything that any of them do.. right? You don't seem to get how real life works so I'm trying to be gentle with you.
Alaskapopo
04-27-13, 01:53
There you go making blanket statements again. If I don't support every single move every single officer makes I can't support anything that any of them do.. right? You don't seem to get how real life works so I'm trying to be gentle with you.
I have been living in real life for 39 years now and doing the job for almost 14 I get it. Seen enough of your posts to know that you always come out on the anti leo side no matter what.
Anyway I thought you were done with me. I will make it easy for you as I am done with you now. Welcome to the ignore list.
Pat
NY? Those the same guys that tried to turn those who drink 16oz soft drinks into criminals before a court told them they were overstepping their boundaries? Yeah, I think I'll pass on reading anything they have to say on any topic ever. Sorry.
One, State, not City; Two, the Court didn't write it, it is a written towards those practicing within the restrictive purvue of New York and Federal Courts.
There are people qualified to judge the actions of the police and military such as the courts, the chain of command etc. But the average internet poster with no training in such matters other than watching Law and Order no I don't think so.
Pat
And how do you know that the internet poster isn't a judge? isn't in your chain of command? doesn't have more experience than you?
Submariner
04-27-13, 07:31
What I am saying is you should not judge things you don't understand.
Pat
How hard is this to understand?
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.
Warrantless searches “are per se unreasonable,” “subject only to a few specifically established and well-delineated exceptions.” Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357, (1967).
Look at this for exceptions. It is accurate.
http://www.answers.com/topic/excepti...-warrant-rules
SWATcop556
04-27-13, 08:58
"Clean up on aisle 4 in GD. Clean up on aisle 4."
I'm done cleaning up this thread. If your reply is not on topic and void of personal BS then DO NOT POST. This is the only warning. After that its night night time after a skull thump with the ban hammer.
There is an ignore list for a reason people. For crying out loud use the damn thing. Sheesh!
VooDoo6Actual
04-27-13, 10:41
There is an ignore list for a reason people. For crying out loud use the damn thing. Sheesh!
This.
Full of Win.
threeheadeddog
04-27-13, 16:15
That's a real interesting point about Constitutional protections. I see the Constitution as being designed and very effective at protecting citizens from tyrannical prosecution by an over-reaching government. While I'd agree that some right to privacy is implied by portions of the Constitution, I don't see this as being always superior to LE's ability to conduct investigations were there is a pressing public safety concern. This is what separates me from many members of the forum who want the Constitution to convey a powerful right to privacy. That is to say, I might be more concerned about 4th Amendment protections if I believed in incorporation of the Bill of Rights, and the police were using these searches to prosecute the actual homeowner's of crimes.
I would argue that it is not tyrranical prosecution that the Bill Of Rights is protecting the people from but forced compliance. When you read the BOR you are reading a list of protections that revolve around the very foundation of what it means to be a free man.
While I am in no way trying to imply that there was any evil intent by LEO in these cases it is the very same type of required compliance that has led to so many of the genocide deaths in history. People always want to point out the gun control measures that helped contribute, but ignore that it is the legal systems fault for creating protected classes of people agains whom there is no immediate protection( the very opposited of the intent of a free,equal people imho)
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.