PDA

View Full Version : Nat'l Security Video Shows Home Searches By Boston Police Were NOT Voluntary


Pages : [1] 2

teedubya
04-21-2013, 05:22 PM
Are you comfortable with this?

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2LrbsUVSVl8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

teedubya
04-21-2013, 05:25 PM
Video Description:

Published on Apr 20, 2013
WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.

This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 05:56 PM
So if a perp flees the scene of a crime and enters private property, should the police have to give up pursuit on to said property until they are given permission by the owner of the property?

As far as removing people from their homes, police are allowed to remove by-standers from an area in order have better control of an emergency situation. If a cop asks you to get out of your car, you'd be wise to do it before they drag your ass through the window.

chefs fan in omaha
04-21-2013, 06:02 PM
WTF. Are the police supposed to knock politely and ask "Sorry, but are you a terrorist?"

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 06:04 PM
Exactly what would have been you course of action? Knock on the door be told nothing to see here and move on? A terrorist is on the loose and has proven he has no regard for human life. He could have unknown people assisting him or could be in a house threatening a loved one in order to get the occupant to tell law enforcement all is well. Seriously what was your plan of action?

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 06:08 PM
So if a perp flees the scene of a crime and enters private property, should the police have to give up pursuit on to said property until they are given permission by the owner of the property?

As far as removing people from their homes, police are allowed to remove by-standers from an area in order have better control of an emergency situation. If a cop asks you to get out of your car, you'd be wise to do it before they drag your ass through the window.

Yes/ every time the cops cant find a killer. The town should be locked down & all homes should be searched at gun point. Can you imagine if they thought this man had a dirty bomb or small nuke. They'ed have shut down everything from the Mississippi east.
IMO it was a lil much. the dragging people out of theirs homes part.

https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/31551_518566451514194_754788827_n.jpg

teedubya
04-21-2013, 06:19 PM
Exactly what would have been you course of action? Knock on the door be told nothing to see here and move on? A terrorist is on the loose and has proven he has no regard for human life. He could have unknown people assisting him or could be in a house threatening a loved one in order to get the occupant to tell law enforcement all is well. Seriously what was your plan of action?

So, what you're saying is "Tread on me"?

Brock
04-21-2013, 06:22 PM
That's a bunch of bullshit.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:22 PM
...


While we're posting pics, Clay was nice enough to share this in the lounge

http://i.imgur.com/Fl056SV.jpg

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:24 PM
I posted this vid in another thread. What disturbs me is the way the occupants are treated. Ripping from the house, barking at them to keep their hands up, patting them down, barking at them to get a move on and patting them down again.

These people were obeying the edict to stay in their home. That is not probably cause to treat them like a threat.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:26 PM
While we're posting pics, Clay was nice enough to share this in the lounge

http://i.imgur.com/Fl056SV.jpg

There should have been a hell of a lot more of this and none of that other bullsh!t. That is the action of a peace officer of the community.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 06:29 PM
While we're posting pics, Clay was nice enough to share this in the lounge

http://i.imgur.com/Fl056SV.jpg

Yes I seen that earlier today. Nice of that officer to bring milk on the first dry run rehearsal

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:29 PM
There should have been a hell of a lot more of this and none of that other bullsh!t. That is the action of a peace officer of the community.

Maybe there was a lot more of that. You sure as hell won't see Teedub et al drawing attention to it though.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:31 PM
Maybe there was a lot more of that. You sure as hell won't see Teedub et al drawing attention to it though.

On the flip side of that, will/has anyone seen the media drawing attention to this video?

I'm honestly asking. I haven't seen any news in a couple of days.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 06:31 PM
Maybe there was a lot more of that. You sure as hell won't see Teedub et al drawing attention to it though.

Pff shut the fuck up. unless you got milk

durtyrute
04-21-2013, 06:31 PM
Didn't cop do that same type of shit during Katrina?

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:32 PM
On the flip side of that, will/has anyone seen the media drawing attention to this video?

I'm honestly asking. I haven't seen any news in a couple of days.

Any interviews I've seen of citizens have been of them thanking the officers, not accusing them of gross abuses of their rights....

Prison Bitch
04-21-2013, 06:34 PM
It would seem that if the police need a search warrant to enter your home for something YOU did, they'd need a search warrant to enter your home running after someone else.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:36 PM
Any interviews I've seen of citizens have been of them thanking the officers, not accusing them of gross abuses of their rights....

Well yeah, it's liberal Boston. Those people think it is ok to have your rights trampled on in the name of "safety".

You tend to find that attitude a little more opposed here in the heartland.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:37 PM
It would seem that if the police need a search warrant to enter your home for something YOU did, they'd need a search warrant to enter your home running after someone else.

And that's why you're ****ing wrong as usual. If a criminal kicked in someone's door while police were in pursuit, police have every ****ing right to continue pursuit into the house.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:39 PM
And that's why you're ****ing wrong as usual. If a criminal kicked in someone's door while police were in pursuit, police have every ****ing right to continue pursuit into the house.

Except that was not the case here.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:41 PM
Except that was not the case here.

Except this is very similar. There was an active pursuit going on. They didn't just start kicking in every door in Boston. They started in the area where the perp was most likely to be, and kept going.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 06:43 PM
Except this is very similar. There was an active pursuit going on. They didn't just start kicking in every door in Boston. They started in the area where the perp was most likely to be, and kept going.

Lets cut to the chase moron.
Is there anything gays or GOV do or say that you don't agree with?

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:43 PM
Except this is very similar. There was an active pursuit going on. They didn't just start kicking in every door in Boston. They started in the area where the perp was most likely to be, and kept going.


Except that it isn't. He was never SEEN entering a house. They were acting off of nothing more than pure speculation.

CoMoChief
04-21-2013, 06:44 PM
This country has been brainwashed my god...just read some of the posts in this thread.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 06:45 PM
So, what you're saying is "Tread on me"?

All I am asking is in this situation what was your course of action? For my own part if a terrorist is on the loose in my neighborhood and the police knock on my door I exit and let them search. However if the guy they were looking for comes to my door he gets dead quickly. In that situation I have a firearm in my hand and only those on my side do not get shot~

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:46 PM
Take the explosion in Texas or Katerina that was brought up a few posts back:

Are police allowed to order people out of certain areas in order to protect the public??? Yes.

Were police allowed to search private property in those situations without permission from the property owners? Yes.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 06:52 PM
Take the explosion in Texas or Katerina that was brought up a few posts back:

Are police allowed to order people out of certain areas in order to protect the public??? Yes.

Were police allowed to search private property in those situations without permission from the property owners? Yes.

Bringing up Katrina is not going to win you any debating points with me.


http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4

Brock
04-21-2013, 06:52 PM
Except this is very similar. There was an active pursuit going on. They didn't just start kicking in every door in Boston. They started in the area where the perp was most likely to be, and kept going.

Do they have search warrants for entire blocks of houses? Bullshit.

Bump
04-21-2013, 06:54 PM
So if a perp flees the scene of a crime and enters private property, should the police have to give up pursuit on to said property until they are given permission by the owner of the property?

As far as removing people from their homes, police are allowed to remove by-standers from an area in order have better control of an emergency situation. If a cop asks you to get out of your car, you'd be wise to do it before they drag your ass through the window.

fuck that. Just lie down and obey your master! fuck that shit.

Brock
04-21-2013, 06:54 PM
Take the explosion in Texas or Katerina that was brought up a few posts back:

Are police allowed to order people out of certain areas in order to protect the public??? Yes.

Were police allowed to search private property in those situations without permission from the property owners? Yes.

Were they waving submachine guns around then too? Did people have to come out of their homes eith their hands raised or risk a beating or worse? Stupid comparison.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:55 PM
Bringing up Katrina is not going to win you any debating points with me.


http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4

That's fine. And there you thousands of others that were stuck on roof-tops which rescue personnel had to risk their own lives to save because people were either too stupid or too poor to leave. That lady's reason for not leaving was b/c she didn't want to leave her dog. Sorry bitch, that's not a valid reason.

Bump
04-21-2013, 06:56 PM
Well yeah, it's liberal Boston. Those people think it is ok to have your rights trampled on in the name of "safety".

You tend to find that attitude a little more opposed here in the heartland.

after 9/11 I recall the news with a lot of people saying "I dont mind giving up some liberties if it keeps us safe"

we're going down a dark road in this country. I would have been pissed if they forced themselves into my home and treated me like some kind of criminal just for living there. I wonder what they would do if they found a little stash of weed in one of those homes. Probably, "we're busy right now, but we'll be back!"

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 06:58 PM
after 9/11 I recall the news with a lot of people saying "I dont mind giving up some liberties if it keeps us safe"

we're going down a dark road in this country. I would have been pissed if they forced themselves into my home and treated me like some kind of criminal just for living there. The smell of weed would have probably had my face in the dirt.

Yeah, I'm sure they would have really fucking cared if you were smoking weed while they were looking for an armed terrorist.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 06:58 PM
after 9/11 I recall the news with a lot of people saying "I dont mind giving up some liberties if it keeps us safe"

we're going down a dark road in this country. I would have been pissed if they forced themselves into my home and treated me like some kind of criminal just for living there. The smell of weed would have probably had my face in the dirt.

You are probably right. The smell of weed is all they need

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 06:58 PM
Bringing up Katrina is not going to win you any debating points with me.


http://youtu.be/-taU9d26wT4

On this we agree. However they were not going door to door disarming people and were trying to locate a terrorist who set off a bomb and killed law enforcement officers. What would have been the proper course of action in your eyes~

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:00 PM
On this we agree. However they were not going door to door disarming people and were trying to locate a terrorist who set off a bomb and killed law enforcement officers. What would have been the proper course of action in your eyes~

How about obeying the law?

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 07:03 PM
If this is the new norm? Then FUCK IT! The terrorist are winning

Prison Bitch
04-21-2013, 07:04 PM
Lets cut to the chase moron.
Is there anything gays or GOV do or say that you don't agree with?

Post of the month.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:06 PM
How about obeying the law?

Are you proposing that any home that refused should have been skipped until a judge approves a search warrant? Im not clear on what you mean by "obey the law"

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:07 PM
That's fine. And there you thousands of others that were stuck on roof-tops which rescue personnel had to risk their own lives to save because people were either too stupid or too poor to leave. That lady's reason for not leaving was b/c she didn't want to leave her dog. Sorry bitch, that's not a valid reason.

You totally missed the point.

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:07 PM
Are you proposing that any home that refused should have been skipped until a judge approves a search warrant? Im not clear on what you mean by "obey the law"

Jesus fucking christ. It's called the 4th amendment, read all about it, hick.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:08 PM
You are probably right. The smell of weed is all they need

JFC. This is not about the smell of weed. This was the active pursuit of a known mass murderer who had set off multiple bombs that killed several people and injured a whole bunch more.

The rule is that the police can't force their way in without a search warrant. Anyone who insists that there is NEVER a reasonable exception to this rule is just looking for an excuse to bitch.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:08 PM
Jesus ****ing christ. It's called the 4th amendment, read all about it, hick.

JFC go look up the word "unreasonable."

Prison Bitch
04-21-2013, 07:09 PM
Why couldn't they just wait outside the house? Even if an armed criminal is inside a house and the cops surround it knowing he is inside, what is the harm in waiting him out? Isn't that the safer alternative than barging a home anyway?


The Constition disallows quartering of soldiers too. Your home is your home. Either get a warrant or wait outside.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 07:10 PM
How about obeying the law?

I have yet to see and course of action suggested. I see a lot of sound bite responses like this one. In this situation given the circumstances what was your plan? This is giving you and everyone else the benefit of 20/20 hindsight~

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:10 PM
BTW, nice loaded wording of the poll. The purpose of the search wasn't to make the residents feel safer, IT WAS TO CATCH THE FUCKER!!!

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 07:10 PM
JFC. This is not about the smell of weed. This was the active pursuit of a known mass murderer who had set off multiple bombs that killed several people and injured a whole bunch more.

The rule is that the police can't force their way in without a search warrant. Anyone who insists that there is NEVER a reasonable exception to this rule is just looking for an excuse to bitch.

& not one hint of or anything that this kid was in a house. So your story bleeds like your vag does once a month

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:11 PM
JFC go look up the word "unreasonable."

Just going house to house is NOT reasonable. This ain't Beirut.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:11 PM
Why couldn't they just wait outside the house? Even if an armed criminal is inside a house and the cops surround it knowing he is inside, what is the harm in waiting him out? Isn't that the safer alternative than barging a home anyway?


The Constition disallows quartering of soldiers too. Your home is your home. Either get a warrant or wait outside.
Because they don't have an infinite amount of cops. They can't just wait outside 1,000 houses if 1,000 idiots insist they can't search their house in a unique situation like this.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:13 PM
On this we agree. However they were not going door to door disarming people and were trying to locate a terrorist who set off a bomb and killed law enforcement officers. What would have been the proper course of action in your eyes~

Cops knock on the door. Individual inside answers it.

Cop: As I am sure you are aware we are conducting a man hunt for that little bastard that bombed the marathon the other day. He was last seen headed into this neighborhood. We would like your permission to check the house and the grounds for him.

Most people in this situation: Absolutely, anything I can do to help, officer.

Cops come in, ask if everyone would gather in the living room everyone and then proceed with their search.

If someone says no, you post people in position to view the property to make sure no one comes or goes while convince a judge for a search warrant.

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:13 PM
I have yet to see and course of action suggested. I see a lot of sound bite responses like this one. In this situation given the circumstances what was your plan? This is giving you and everyone else the benefit of 20/20 hindsight~

The law says they need a warrant to search your home. That may be a trivial principle to you, but they are going to show me a warrant.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:13 PM
& not one hint of or anything that this kid was in a house. So your story bleeds like your vag does once a month
You're right. They should have waiting until the terrorist told them where he was hiding so that they could search for him in the boat.

This was a terrible story that had a happy ending because they caught the motherfucker. And still people look for things to whine and bitch about.

Prison Bitch
04-21-2013, 07:14 PM
Because they don't have an infinite amount of cops. They can't just wait outside 1,000 houses if 1,000 idiots insist they can't search their house in a unique situation like this.

Fair point. I'll ask then why they're going door to door if they don't have te manpower to sweep every house. If as you say there are 1,000 homes you cannot check them all anyway. And the ones you do? Short search anyway where you could miss him.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:15 PM
Cops knock on the door. Individual inside answers it.

Cop: As I am sure you are aware we are conducting a man hunt for that little bastard that bombed the marathon the other day. He was last seen headed into this neighborhood. We would like your permission to check the house and the grounds for him.

Most people in this situation: Absolutely, anything I can do to help, officer.

Cops come in, ask if everyone would gather in the living room everyone and then proceed with their search.

If someone says no, you post people in position to view the property to make sure no one comes or goes while convince a judge for a search warrant.
Yes, because there is an infinite supply of cops and and infinite amount of time to catch mass murdering terrorist.

The idiocy of some people on this forum is amazing.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:16 PM
The law says they need a warrant to search your home. That may be a trivial principle to you, but they are going to show me a warrant.

Or what? Swat team at front door are you going to kick some ass and make them leave? Really?

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:16 PM
Because they don't have an infinite amount of cops. They can't just wait outside 1,000 houses if 1,000 idiots insist they can't search their house in a unique situation like this.

Actually yes, they can.

There were specific rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights for a reason.

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:17 PM
All they have to do now is tell you there may be a person around who may be dangerous and get the fuck out of your own home while we poke around and sniff your wife's panties.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:18 PM
Yes, because there is an infinite supply of cops and and infinite amount of time to catch mass murdering terrorist.

The idiocy of some people on this forum is amazing.

Not my problem.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:19 PM
Or what? Swat team at front door are you going to kick some ass and make them leave? Really?

No he'll just fruitlessly sue after SWAT spends a whooping 5 mins in his house.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 07:19 PM
You're right. They should have waiting until the terrorist told them where he was hiding so that they could search for him in the boat.

This was a terrible story that had a happy ending because they caught the motherfucker. And still people look for things to whine and bitch about.

They dint find him smart ass. A civilian that had been waiting all fucking day to be ALLOWED the OPPORTUNITY to leave his HOUSE to have a SMOKE found him.
So IMO If they would not have locked down the neighborhood & made everyone go inside
Joe cig smoker would have found him HOURS earlier.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:19 PM
Actually yes, they can.

There were specific rights specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights for a reason.
Have you ever heard the term "exigent circumstance"?

An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.

In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:


An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]


Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.

Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.

Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:20 PM
Not my problem.

That's the American spirit right there.

"I enjoy being the turd in the punchbowl."/hadar

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:20 PM
All they have to do now is tell you there may be a person around who may be dangerous and get the fuck out of your own home while we poke around and sniff your wife's panties.

Yep. You allow for one excuse, more are to follow.

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:21 PM
Or what? Swat team at front door are you going to kick some ass and make them leave? Really?

This is probably the behavior you will exhibit when they come to confiscate your firearms right? I knew you were all talk.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:21 PM
Have you ever heard the term "exigent circumstance"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law


I've heard of it. Doesn't mean that I think it is Constitutional.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:21 PM
Yep. You allow for one excuse, more are to follow.
Ah yes the old "slippery slope" argument.

When you know your position is ludicrous, invoke the slippery slope argument.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:23 PM
They dint find him smart ass. A civilian that had been waiting all ****ing day to be ALLOWED the OPPORTUNITY to leave his HOUSE to have a SMOKE found him.
So IMO If they would not have locked down the neighborhood & made everyone go inside
Joe cig smoker would have found him HOURS earlier.
Pure speculation.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:23 PM
I've heard of it. Doesn't mean that I think it is Constitutional.
Fortunately, you are in the minority. An extremely loud and vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:24 PM
This is probably the behavior you will exhibit when they come to confiscate your firearms right? I knew you were all talk.
Completely irrelevant. This is not an argument about gun control.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:25 PM
That's the American spirit right there.

Actually, it is.


http://libcom.org/files/images/history/American-revolution.jpg

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:25 PM
Pure speculation.

Sot of like what they used to herd people out of their home at gunpoint.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:25 PM
Pure speculation.

As was the notion that the bad guy was in any of the houses.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:26 PM
Sot of like what they used to herd people out of their home at gunpoint.

Beat me to it.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:27 PM
Fortunately, you are in the minority. An extremely loud and vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

I don't know what is fortunate about it but, whatever.

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:27 PM
Completely irrelevant. This is not an argument about gun control.

No, but these so-called conservatives like HCF often talk about that happening and what they would be willing to do to protect their rights. It is all bullshit, clearly.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:27 PM
We need Banyon. Im no lawyer but there must be some circumstances whereby a search can take place without the time effort and delay involved in getting a warrant.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:27 PM
As was the notion that the bad guy was in any of the houses.

Hmmm. Didn't Dorner hold up in a house??? Even took hostages at gunpoint, tied them up and took their car???

I meant held up in a house before the final shootout btw.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:29 PM
Sot of like what they used to herd people out of their home at gunpoint.

As was the notion that the bad guy was in any of the houses.

Here's the problem with your outrage over this: NOBODY was damaged by this, and NOBODY is making the claim that warrantless searches are OK 99.999% of the time. This was a unique situation and there is precedent to allow this to happen in exigent circumstances. You can bluster all you want that you don't agree with the legal principile of exigent circumstances, but the principle exists and a majority of people agree with it.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:29 PM
No, but these so-called conservatives like HCF often talk about that happening and what they would be willing to do to protect their rights. It is all bullshit, clearly.

You are the one voicing some batshit craziness about warrant or else. Just what is your what else?

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:29 PM
We need Banyon. Im no lawyer but there must be some circumstances whereby a search can take place without the time effort and delay involved in getting a warrant.

Obviously there is. Some vague assertion about a suspect they are looking for is all that is required now.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:29 PM
Ah yes the old "slippery slope" argument.

When you know your position is ludicrous, invoke the slippery slope argument.

I fail to see how the slippery slope argument is not valid.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:29 PM
We need Banyon. Im no lawyer but there must be some circumstances whereby a search can take place without the time effort and delay involved in getting a warrant.

Has to be probable cause

Brock
04-21-2013, 07:30 PM
You are the one voicing some batshit craziness about warrant or else. Just what is your what else?

You are nothing but a blustering pussy when it comes down to it.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:31 PM
Obviously there is. Some vague assertion about a suspect they are looking for is all that is required now.
You're being dishonest now. This was a hell of a lot more than some vague assertion. Stop moving the goal posts.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:32 PM
Obviously there is. Some vague assertion about a suspect they are looking for is all that is required now.

Can you provide any background or is this just you perspective? Has the cort upheld vague assertions as a principal?

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:32 PM
Hmmm. Didn't Dorner hold up in a house??? Even took hostages at gunpoint, tied them up and took their car???

I meant held up in a house before the final shootout btw.

:spock: What? The actions of one individual, not even remotely related to this situation, is grounds for probable cause?

Are you really this stupid? Or just trolling?

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 07:32 PM
You are nothing but a blustering pussy when it comes down to it.

For fucks sake are you drunk?

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:33 PM
Obviously there is. Some vague assertion about a suspect they are looking for is all that is required now.

Yeah, b/c this was some vague run-of-the-mill suspect in this situation.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:33 PM
You are nothing but a blustering pussy when it comes down to it.

Ok lets accept that. Now back to my original question?

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:33 PM
You're being dishonest now. This was a hell of a lot more than some vague assertion. Stop moving the goal posts.

What was there reasoning for searching said house without a warrant? What made them think there was a crime being committed in that house that justified a warrantless entry and search?

Regardless of terrorists, we still have Rights.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:33 PM
I fail to see how the slippery slope argument is not valid.
Because the slippery slope argument is never a valid argument. It's simply a way to move the goal posts when you can't win an argument on its own merits, so instead you say "Well, if you allow THIS to happen, that means THIS OTHER THING could happen, and THIS OTHER THING is bad, therefore THIS must be prohibited".

It's a total bullshit argument that is NEVER valid.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:34 PM
Because the slippery slope argument is never a valid argument. It's simply a way to move the goal posts when you can't win an argument on its own merits, so instead you say "Well, if you allow THIS to happen, that means THIS OTHER THING could happen, and THIS OTHER THING is bad, therefore THIS must be prohibited".

It's a total bullshit argument that is NEVER valid.

Dude, where do you get your pot?

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:34 PM
What was there reasoning for searching said house without a warrant? What made them think there was a crime being committed in that house that justified a warrantless entry and search?

Regardless of terrorists, we still have Rights.
Et tu, Pete?

I thought you were smarter than this. Apparently I was wrong.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:35 PM
Dude, where do you get your pot?
OK, tell me why the slippery slope argument is a valid argument.

Your argument should succeed or fail on its own merits.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:36 PM
Et tu, Pete?

I thought you were smarter than this. Apparently I was wrong.

A criminal at large does not justufy warrantless entry and search just becasue you want to go house to house. What was the suspicion to cause this house to be searched without a warrant?

It's a rather easy question and the authorities should be able to answer that easily unless they were violating the constitution.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:36 PM
OK, tell me why the slippery slope argument is a valid argument.

Your argument should succeed or fail on its own merits.

Bank bailouts??? :doh!:

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:36 PM
:spock: What? The actions of one individual, not even remotely related to this situation, is grounds for probable cause?

Are you really this stupid? Or just trolling?

Dead serious here. They knew Dorner was in the mountains, likely held up in a house so they systematically searched every fucking house they wanted to. It turns out he took hostages at gunpoint and tied them up and took their car. That is exactly the type of situation police in Boston were afraid of.

El Jefe
04-21-2013, 07:37 PM
Are you comfortable with this?

<iframe width="640" height="480" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/2LrbsUVSVl8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I have no problem with this. He could have broken in and held people hostage in their own homes. Drastic times call for drastic measures.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:38 PM
Because the slippery slope argument is never a valid argument. It's simply a way to move the goal posts when you can't win an argument on its own merits, so instead you say "Well, if you allow THIS to happen, that means THIS OTHER THING could happen, and THIS OTHER THING is bad, therefore THIS must be prohibited".

It's a total bullshit argument that is NEVER valid.

A: The slippery slope argument has not been my main argument. I agreed with it when stated by another poster.

B: it is valid because it is true. The dismissing of even the possibility of it being true is done by those who cannot win the argument.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:39 PM
I have no problem with this. He could have broken in and held people hostage in their own homes. Drastic times call for drastic measures.

That's a good sheep....

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:39 PM
Dead serious here. They knew Dorner was in the mountains, likely held up in a house so they systematically searched every fucking house they wanted to. It turns out he took hostages at gunpoint and tied them up and took their car. That is exactly the type of situation police in Boston were afraid of.

There is a big difference between "afraid of" and certain of.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:40 PM
Bank bailouts??? :doh!:
THAT'S your argument?

:facepalm:

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:41 PM
I hate wiki. But lacking anything better, there is this statement...."Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."[20] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different."

We need a real lawyer to address this if we hope to achieve any resolution. Like thats possible here. But it implys that under some circumstances warrantless searches are in fact permissable. But it is a wiki reference.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:42 PM
THAT'S your argument?

:facepalm:

Dude, that's not an argument, that's proof.

DTLB58
04-21-2013, 07:42 PM
WTF. Are the police supposed to knock politely and ask "Sorry, but are you a terrorist?"

Exactly. If that guy was hiding in the very first house they went to but told the residents not to allow the police in and held them at gun point and the search went on for days or weeks and he just hung out in their basement because no search could be done....

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:43 PM
I hate wiki. But lacking anything better, there is this statement...."Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."[20] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different."

We need a real lawyer to address this if we hope to achieve any resolution. Like thats possible here. But it implys that under some circumstances warrantless searches are in fact permissable. But it is a wiki reference.

That is accurate. But they still have to demonstrate why they thought a crime was being committed. They can't just say "we thought..." and that's it.

teedubya
04-21-2013, 07:43 PM
While we're posting pics, Clay was nice enough to share this in the lounge

http://i.imgur.com/Fl056SV.jpg

Probably GMO milk. o:-) LMAO

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:43 PM
There is a big difference between "afraid of" and certain of.

They don't have to be certain. Go back and read this post by brainiac

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9611893&postcount=62

If you don't like it, kick rocks.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:45 PM
They don't have to be certain. Go back and read this post by brainiac

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9611893&postcount=62

If you don't like it, kick rocks.

Constitution says otherwise. If you don't like it, pound sand.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 07:46 PM
That is accurate. But they still have to demonstrate why they thought a crime was being committed. They can't just say "we thought..." and that's it.

As much as wanna agree with you. I just dont think that is the case anymore.
They can turn any situation into anything they want, when ever they want, with lil to no retribution for lack of a better word.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:47 PM
Constitution says otherwise. If you don't like it, pound sand.

Are you a Supreme Court Judge??? No??? STFU.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 07:47 PM
The people expressing all of the righteous indignation in this thread remind me of a guy I used to work with.

He was absolutely outraged when the Homeland Security Act of 2002 was passed. He was ranting about it one day at lunch, and he said he would rather see a plane go down every month than see this bill passed because it was such an egregious violation of everybody's civil rights.

I didn't think "Wow, he sure feels strongly about this". Instead, I thought "What a fucking asshole".

99.99% of the time the end does NOT justify the means. But sometimes it does.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:48 PM
That is accurate. But they still have to demonstrate why they thought a crime was being committed. They can't just say "we thought..." and that's it.

Before or after the search? Who do they have to demonstrate it to? Do they need some neat statement to read to Mr Homeowner and gain his agreement or have a chat till everyone is buying in? Is a hold up, an abduction/car jacking, a dead cop and bombs enough demonstration a crime in inderway?

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 07:48 PM
I hate wiki. But lacking anything better, there is this statement...."Conversely, the Court has approved routine warrantless seizures, for example "where there is probable cause to believe that a criminal offense has been or is being committed."[20] Thus, the reasonableness requirement and the warrant requirement are somewhat different."

We need a real lawyer to address this if we hope to achieve any resolution. Like thats possible here. But it implys that under some circumstances warrantless searches are in fact permissable. But it is a wiki reference.

Oh quit with this nonsense! If there is ever a terrorist loose in your neighborhood and swat shows up looking for him if you don't come out with guns blazing you are a pussy ;)

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:52 PM
Before or after the search? Who do they have to demonstrate it to? Do they need some neat statement to read to Mr Homeowner and gain his agreement or have a chat till everyone is buying in? Is a hold up, an abduction/car jacking, a dead cop and bombs enough demonstration a crime in inderway?

FTR, I think their saying they didn't rob a 7-11 now. It was a mix-up by the media. They did rob the guy they carjacked out of money from the ATM though.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:53 PM
Oh quit with this nonsense! If there is ever a terrorist loose in your neighborhood and swat shows up looking for him if you don't come out with guns blazing you are a pussy ;)

Yea. Brock already established that though. However, id be prone to greet Mr abdul al-terror with a harsh welcome but not a Swat team. I may be a pussy. But I am not that stupid. Swat is doing their job. I can holster my weapon for them.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 07:54 PM
Before or after the search? Who do they have to demonstrate it to? Do they need some neat statement to read to Mr Homeowner and gain his agreement or have a chat till everyone is buying in? Is a hold up, an abduction/car jacking, a dead cop and bombs enough demonstration a crime in inderway?

They only have to demonstrate their probable cause if they are called on it. Otherwise if no one ever calls them on it via a law suit then it's probably going to go bye the bye. They don't have to demonstrate it before.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 07:54 PM
Are you a Supreme Court Judge??? No??? STFU.

Doesn't mean sh!t. Even SC justices can rule incorrectly.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 07:56 PM
Doesn't mean sh!t. Even SC justices can rule incorrectly.

ROFL

"Only hadar knows the right of it"

ROFL

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:57 PM
They only have to demonstrate their probable cause if they are called on it. Otherwise if no one ever calls them on it via a law suit then it's probably going to go bye the bye. They don't have to demonstrate it before.

Good thing they didn't go to Brocks house or ther would be some serious shit go down. By God.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 07:58 PM
Yea. Brock already established that though. However, id be prone to greet Mr abdul al-terror with a harsh welcome but not a Swat team. I may be a pussy. But I am not that stupid. Swat is doing their job. I can holster my weapon for them.

A few posts back I said the same thing lol there are several here I often agree with. On this issue not so much. This place can be fun. On some issues I am called a right winger on others like this one I am looked at as a left winger lol~

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 07:59 PM
A few posts back I said the same thing lol there are several here I often agree with. On this issue not so much. This place can be fun. On some issues I am called a right winger on others like this one I am looked at as a left winger lol~

In your heart you know I'm right

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:00 PM
ROFL

"Only hadar knows the right of it"

ROFL

Please demonstrate to me how SC justices are any less fallible human beings than the rest of us.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 08:01 PM
In your heart you know I'm right

You and I are in agreement on this~

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:01 PM
A few posts back I said the same thing lol there are several here I often agree with. On this issue not so much. This place can be fun. On some issues I am called a right winger on others like this one I am looked at as a left winger lol~

Why would you not give an inch on the second amendment but, give one on the fourth?

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 08:01 PM
Dude, that's not an argument, that's proof.
That's neither proof, nor an argument, nor even an unsupported assertion.

In order for "bank bailout" to be any of those things, you actually have to state your case, explain how you think bank bailouts demonstrate the validity of the slippery slope argument, and show an actual causal correlation. You didn't do any of that. You simply said "bank bailout", and then you patted yourself on the back as if you had just won a debate.

You'd have been better off if you'd have just replied with the name of your favorite porn actress. Then at least we'd think you're funny.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 08:03 PM
You and I are in agreement on this~

Still want to see Brock, in his best Hollywierd voice, face off with a Swat team and declare make my day ......

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 08:06 PM
Why would you not give an inch on the second amendment but, give one on the fourth?

Ahhhhh haaaa!!!! Finally!!! The liberal gun banners have no issue infringing the rights of the 2nd. But will take on Swat teams and Satan himself over the 4th? Thank you. Someone finall brought this to light.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 08:07 PM
Why would you not give an inch on the second amendment but, give one on the fourth?

I am heading to bed but will take time to reply to a friend. In these circumstances I have no issue with swat searching house to house. They were not disarming people they were locating a terrorist. People scream that this guy should be treated as a war criminal as he should be. When an act of war has happened and additional acts are possible measures need to be taken to end the threat~

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 08:09 PM
Please demonstrate to me how SC justices are any less fallible human beings than the rest of us.

Please demonstrate how you would know more about The Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge.

HonestChieffan
04-21-2013, 08:09 PM
I am heading to bed but will take time to reply to a friend. In these circumstances I have no issue with swat searching house to house. They were not disarming people they were locating a terrorist. People scream that this guy should be treated as a war criminal as he should be. When an act of war has happened and additional acts are possible measures need to be taken to end the threat~

Bed as well. Turkey season. Up at 415.

RedNeckRaider
04-21-2013, 08:10 PM
Bed as well. Turkey season. Up at 415.

Happy hunting~

Guru
04-21-2013, 08:12 PM
K

Aries Walker
04-21-2013, 08:13 PM
Something tells me there's more going on in this particular house than the average. Look at who came out; one woman, one dog, and about eight young men, all with dark hair and reasonably athletic builds. I wonder if this was a house that was on their radar for something or other before they decided to storm it.

Plus, if they had used this tactic against every house all day, the Internet would be wallpapered in videos like this. This looks like they were giving this place extra attention.

Aries Walker
04-21-2013, 08:16 PM
That said, I do wonder what happened if someone were to flat-out refuse to let them in. The police would have to immediately consider that house a likely spot for the kid to be hiding, so what would (did) they do? Kick it in?

kcpasco
04-21-2013, 08:16 PM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

kcpasco
04-21-2013, 08:18 PM
A few posts back I said the same thing lol there are several here I often agree with. On this issue not so much. This place can be fun. On some issues I am called a right winger on others like this one I am looked at as a left winger lol~

Nice signature. I didn't notice until after I posted.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 08:20 PM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

"Those who would refuse to give up liberty for 5 mins while police are actively searching for a terrorist deserve to get punched in the dick." - Me

petegz28
04-21-2013, 08:23 PM
"Those who would refuse to give up liberty for 5 mins while police are actively searching for a terrorist deserve to get punched in the dick." - Me

you're tough.....





he's tough....

kcpasco
04-21-2013, 08:24 PM
"Those who would refuse to give up liberty for 5 mins while police are actively searching for a terrorist deserve to get punched in the dick." - Me

So you would want to punch Ben Franklin in the dick?

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:24 PM
I am heading to bed but will take time to reply to a friend. In these circumstances I have no issue with swat searching house to house. They were not disarming people they were locating a terrorist. People scream that this guy should be treated as a war criminal as he should be. When an act of war has happened and additional acts are possible measures need to be taken to end the threat~

So you will not give any ground on the second amendment in the name of "safety" but, you will give up ground on the fourth in the name of "safety". Ok.

Brainiac
04-21-2013, 08:25 PM
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Benjamin Franklin

"Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do."

Benjamin Franklin

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:25 PM
Please demonstrate how you would know more about The Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge.

That response does not demonstrate the infallibility of SC justices.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 08:27 PM
So you would want to punch Ben Franklin in the dick?

Maybe not him. He had to of caught a case in France.

petegz28
04-21-2013, 08:29 PM
Please demonstrate how you would know more about The Constitution than a Supreme Court Judge.

:facepalm:

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 08:29 PM
That response does not demonstrate the infallibility of SC justices.

This is true. Hell, maybe the Constitution itself is wrong, no? I mean, it was written by men, and men are fallible. Do you think the Constitution is wrong, hader?

petegz28
04-21-2013, 08:33 PM
This is true. Hell, maybe the Constitution itself is wrong, no? I mean, it was written by men, and men are fallible. Do you think the Constitution is wrong, hader?

Dude, put the bong down already.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:39 PM
This is true. Hell, maybe the Constitution itself is wrong, no? I mean, it was written by men, and men are fallible. Do you think the Constitution is wrong, hader?

As a whole it is an amazing document and pretty well on the mark. But, there were certainly some errant decisions made in parts of it.

Nothing human designed or touched is free from error.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:40 PM
As a whole it is an amazing document and pretty well on the mark. But, there were certainly some errant decisions made in parts of it.

Nothing human designed or touched is free from error.

Now, please demonstrate too me how a SC justice is any less fallible than any of the rest of us.

ghak99
04-21-2013, 08:41 PM
The number of "what the fuck"s I said during that video made me feel like a right wing nut job.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:43 PM
The number of "what the fuck"s I said during that video made me feel like a right wing nut job.

So you are saying that you are not a right wing nut job and take issue with this any way?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-21-2013, 08:45 PM
Fortunately, you are in the minority. An extremely loud and vocal minority, but a minority nonetheless.

Scuse me this isn't a democracy, It's still a Constitutional Republic where the majority shall not infringe on our GOD GIVEN rights.

Raiderhader
04-21-2013, 08:56 PM
Scuse me this isn't a democracy, It's still a Constitutional Republic where the majority shall not infringe on our GOD GIVEN rights.

Constitution, pfft.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:09 PM
While we're posting pics, Clay was nice enough to share this in the lounge

http://i.imgur.com/Fl056SV.jpg

The same picture was online but it had the swat team guy, asking if the people inside had donuts.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:10 PM
Bottom Line: It didn't work.

ghak99
04-21-2013, 09:11 PM
So you are saying that you are not a right wing nut job and take issue with this any way?

Yes.

I am not a right wing nut job, but I felt like going on a Beck type rant after seeing that video and how the people were treated. They may as well have been covered in wool the way they were ordered out the door and herded down the sidewalk to receive their multiple frisks.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 09:18 PM
Bottom Line: It didn't work.

Did anyone else die?

It worked.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:19 PM
Did anyone else die?

It worked.
Irrelevant to my point.

They didn't find the guy in any of those homes—or anywhere via that method.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:22 PM
Also, KChiefer, do you think any of those people wouldn't have let the police in voluntarily?

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 09:23 PM
They didn't find the guy in any of those homes—or anywhere via that method.

They would have...

If there was no lockdown, there would have been hundreds of calls about false IDs causing even more chaos.

You and your Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty cute though.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 09:25 PM
Also, KChiefer, do you think any of those people wouldn't have let the police in voluntarily?

Considering their immediate option after refusing to let them in was to have SWAT come in anyways, no, I think they would have all let them in.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:37 PM
They would have...

If there was no lockdown, there would have been hundreds of calls about false IDs causing even more chaos.

You and your Monday morning quarterbacking is pretty cute though.

I wasn't talking about the lockdown here. Pay attention. I'm talking about the Fourth Amendment.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:39 PM
Considering their immediate option after refusing to let them in was to have SWAT come in anyways, no, I think they would have all let them in.

That's not what I am talking about either. I know you like a display of force and the idea of threatening them. I'm asking about their willingness to cooperate. Afterall, the media made it appear that was the case based on what was left out.

Discuss Thrower
04-21-2013, 09:41 PM
These Chechen fools were rank amateurs and yet the authorities handled the situation as if they were crack agents from SPECTRE running amok with NBC-type weapon.

OBL was smiling and smoking a blunt in his watery grave at the notion he's succeeded in turning our country against our rule of law we supposedly hold dear.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 09:43 PM
These Chechen fools were rank amateurs and yet the authorities handled the situation as if they were crack agents from SPECTRE running amok with NBC-type weapon.

OBL was smiling and smoking a blunt in his watery grave at the notion he's succeeded in turning our country against our rule of law we supposedly hold dear.

:clap:

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 09:56 PM
KCheifer,
I'm looking for a stronger argument out of you. Why can't you bring up points such as these posters ( or even the lead article)?

Now I ask you, why wouldn't a single warrant for all the homes-apartments in the 20-block area be impossible on a rush basis? ( To my knowledge these can be done rapidly....someone can inform me otherwise.)

Also, to my knowledge, where the suspect was found was outside the perimeter of the defined search area.


http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/19/house-to-house-searches-and-the-fourth-amendment/

Setsuna
04-21-2013, 09:59 PM
Honestly I'd be changing the locks regardless if they are who they say they are. They are still human beings who have the capacity to do evil.

Demonpenz
04-21-2013, 10:02 PM
Hopefully it is a teaching tool for the public and police. This whole deal is probably going to happen MORE...so maybe we can follow rules next time.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 10:05 PM
Hopefully it is a teaching tool for the public and police. This whole deal is probably going to happen MORE...so maybe we can follow rules next time.

Exactly why, I want our FP to change. So we don't have to continue to live like this.:doh!:
Like I said before, the politicians have brought this on us. Not the cops. The entire WoT has been an assault on the 4th Amendment.

Pawnmower
04-21-2013, 10:09 PM
The law says they need a warrant to search your home. That may be a trivial principle to you, but they are going to show me a warrant.

no it doesn't......

they just wouldn't be able to use any of the evidence against you in court

which , in this case, they didnt give one fuck about

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 10:11 PM
no it doesn't......

they just wouldn't be able to use any of the evidence against you in court

which , in this case, they didnt give one **** about

True, but that's a penalty on them for breaking the law.

Pawnmower
04-21-2013, 10:14 PM
In Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), the Supreme Court ruled that a search occurs when 1) a person expects privacy in the thing searched and 2) society believes that expectation is reasonable.

please take a poll of society and tell me that a house to house search in the neighborhood where a suspect is hiding , and has just shot a cop, carjacked someone and set off bombs, tried to run over cops, and been involved in a shootout is unreasonable.


also there could be more bombs out there...

It even turns out they were correct! they found him on private property in that area.

KChiefer
04-21-2013, 10:20 PM
KCheifer,
I'm looking for a stronger argument out of you. Why can't you bring up points such as these posters ( or even the lead article)?

Now I ask you, why wouldn't a single warrant for all the homes-apartments in the 20-block area be impossible on a rush basis? ( To my knowledge these can be done rapidly....someone can inform me otherwise.)

Also, to my knowledge, where the suspect was found was outside the perimeter of the defined search area.


http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/19/house-to-house-searches-and-the-fourth-amendment/

I'm not playing twenty questions with you. You asked me a question earlier and I answered it. That's more fairness than you would afford me when I asked you a question yesterday.

As for you wanting to continue a debate about the legality of this search, again I'll refer people to Brainics post about "exigent circumstance." (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9611893&postcount=62)

If you don't agree with this being an exigent circumstance, fine.

Anyways, I really don't know why I'm bothering with you. Earlier today, you were dumb enough to entertain the idea that Navy Seals (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9609694&postcount=280) were part of some conspiracy to execute the bombing. Why in the hell, would I think you've gotten any smarter in the hours since.? Do us all a favor and swallow a box of tampons that we know you don't need anymore.

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 10:35 PM
I'm not playing twenty questions with you. You asked me a question earlier and I answered it. That's more fairness than you would afford me when I asked you a question yesterday.

I told you why I didn't.

As for you wanting to continue a debate about the legality of this search, again I'll refer people to Brainics post about "exigent circumstance." (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9611893&postcount=62)

If you don't agree with this being an exigent circumstance, fine.

Yeah, I get it, he makes exceptions to the Constitution based on men making law as they go.
I'm not looking for a debate from you, as much as I am looking for you to provide more substance to your stand. You mainly have emotion. That page, almost made me change my mind. Some very good points.

Anyways, I really don't know why I'm bothering with you. Earlier today, you were dumb enough to entertain the idea that Navy Seals (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9609694&postcount=280) were part of some conspiracy to execute the bombing. Why in the hell, would I think you've gotten any smarter in the hours since.? Do us all a favor and swallow a box of tampons that we know you don't need anymore.

"Entertained" the idea? Lol, I only said if they were, they'd be traitors. Nice use of more logical fallacies though.
Oh, and you bother with me a lot...and you know it. Just not as much as you have loved them in your home where you could give one of them a BJ.

LiveSteam
04-21-2013, 11:25 PM
I told you why I didn't.



Yeah, I get it, he makes exceptions to the Constitution based on men making law as they go.
I'm not looking for a debate from you, as much as I am looking for you to provide more substance to your stand. You mainly have emotion. That page, almost made me change my mind. Some very good points.



"Entertained" the idea? Lol, I only said if they were, they'd be traitors. Nice use of more logical fallacies though.
Oh, and you bother with me a lot...and you know it. Just not as much as you have loved them in your home where you could give one of them a BJ.

I see what you did there

BucEyedPea
04-21-2013, 11:28 PM
Ayup!

dirk digler
04-22-2013, 06:25 AM
The searches are not in violation of the 4th amendment contrary to what others have said in this thread. One of the exceptions to the 4th Amendment is the public safety exception which states the police do not need a warrant to search if they reasonably fear for their safety or the public’s safety.

And for the stupid people the Supreme Court created this exception and contrary to what you may think when the Supreme Court makes a ruling it is the law of the land whether we like it or not.

And one final piece of advice, if LEO ask you to do something unless you have something to hide\protect then it is best to do what they ask. All you are going to do is make it harder for yourself and probably end up in jail.

Garcia Bronco
04-22-2013, 06:44 AM
The search is reasonable. Its in the the language of the 4th amendment. Its sucks, but its true. And while the word "reasonable" is subjective, it would seem to me that this search was the right thing to do.

T-post Tom
04-22-2013, 07:10 AM
Anyways, I really don't know why I'm bothering with you. Earlier today, you were dumb enough to entertain the idea that Navy Seals (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=9609694&postcount=280) were part of some conspiracy to execute the bombing. Why in the hell, would I think you've gotten any smarter in the hours since?


Those were not Navy SEALs. They were alien Greys disguised as Navy SEALs. This is all part of the Reptilians vs the Greys war. How can you people not know that? Don't you read infowars.com?

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 07:18 AM
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/63dihjR8PPo?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Amnorix
04-22-2013, 07:32 AM
KCheifer,
I'm looking for a stronger argument out of you. Why can't you bring up points such as these posters ( or even the lead article)?

Now I ask you, why wouldn't a single warrant for all the homes-apartments in the 20-block area be impossible on a rush basis? ( To my knowledge these can be done rapidly....someone can inform me otherwise.)



Because it's an unnecessary waste of time and busy work?

Seriously, there are a host of public safety / exigent circumstances cases that make it pretty clear that no warrant is needed.

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 08:36 AM
Irrelevant to my point.

They didn't find the guy in any of those homes—or anywhere via that method.
20/20 hindsight is always pretty accurate.

It sounds like you think a much better plan would have been for the police to sit on their asses and wait for someone to call them and tell them that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding in a boat. What you fail to understand is that by shutting everything down and doing a house to house search, they put pressure on Tsarnaev. The end result was they captured him and nobody else got injured or killed.

Sounds like a pretty good outcome to me, notwithstanding the people who have decided to get their panties in a bunch about the searches.

loochy
04-22-2013, 08:38 AM
Are you comfortable with this?

Yes.

I wouldn't say it makes me feel safer, but go ahead and look for the guy. I don't have anything to hide.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 08:47 AM
Yes.

I wouldn't say it makes me feel safer, but go ahead and look for the guy. I don't have anything to hide.

Do all of your mattresses have tags?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AJuIYcVnc2I?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

loochy
04-22-2013, 08:49 AM
Do all of your mattresses have tags?

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/AJuIYcVnc2I?feature=player_detailpage" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

All of my mattresses do, in fact, have tags.

KILLER_CLOWN
04-22-2013, 08:53 AM
All of my mattresses do, in fact, have tags.

Good, because That's the first place the Po Po look for infractions.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 09:13 AM
20/20 hindsight is always pretty accurate.

Actually, some veteran investigators say it wasn't necessary as it took millions of eyes off the guy.
Remember a private citizen found him, when the "lockdown" was lifted.
BTW lockdown is a word used for prisons.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 09:16 AM
please take a poll of society and tell me that a house to house search in the neighborhood where a suspect is hiding , and has just shot a cop, carjacked someone and set off bombs, tried to run over cops, and been involved in a shootout is unreasonable.


also there could be more bombs out there...

It even turns out they were correct! they found him on private property in that area.

They knew he was in Watertwown so that area being secured is reasonable. But the homemade bombs they had, were used up that previous night. They had police chiefs giving the details last night.

I always thought reasonable meant there had to be suspicion of a crime. I see no reason why a warrant for a block of twenty houses could not have been.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 09:28 AM
Actually, some veteran investigators say it wasn't necessary as it took millions of eyes off the guy.Remember a private citizen found him, when the "lockdown" was lifted.
BTW lockdown is a word used for prisons.

And removed millions from harms way.

cop - "Look there he is! Get him."

other cop - "Wait don't shoot, there are civilians in the area!"

cop - "Oh no, the perp spotted us and has now taken the civilians hostage."

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 09:29 AM
They knew he was in Watertwown so that area being secured is reasonable. But the homemade bombs they had, were used up that previous night. They had police chiefs giving the details last night.

I always thought reasonable meant there had to be suspicion of a crime. I see no reason why a warrant for a block of twenty houses could not have been.

I had no idea the guys called the cops and told them that they were out of bombs. That was nice of them.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 09:37 AM
And removed millions from harms way.

cop - "Look there he is! Get him."

other cop - "Wait don't shoot, there are civilians in the area!"

cop - "Oh no, the perp spotted us and has now taken the civilians hostage."

Millions is conjecture, since he wasn't even in the actual city anymore. They had him narrowed down to Watertown.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 09:37 AM
I had no idea the guys called the cops and told them that they were out of bombs. That was nice of them.

Listen to the story...the details say what happened.

But again, I still say, we're in this position because of the politicians. Many of their hands are all over those bombs because of our FP. In the meantime, the same politicians are busy using this fear to steal even more liberties. The sheep will cheer it on too.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 09:41 AM
Millions is conjecture, since he wasn't even in the actual city anymore. They had him narrowed down to Watertown.

I just used millions because that is what you said. I am also sure that is too large though.

Listen to the story...the details say what happened.

But again, I still say, we're in this position because of the politicians. Many of their hands are all over those bombs because of our FP.

So the cops knew that they were out of bombs before catching him? The bad guys told them this? The fact that he was out is completely irrevelant unless all the cops knew this for a fact while searching for him.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 09:46 AM
I just used millions because that is what you said. I am also sure that is too large though.



So the cops knew that they were out of bombs before catching him? The bad guys told them this? The fact that he was out is completely irrevelant unless all the cops knew this for a fact while searching for him.

I answered you already. That's what the police said. My guess is that no more were used after a certain point. How many pressure cookers could he run with anyway?

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 09:48 AM
I answered you already. That's what the police said. My guess is that no more were used after a certain point. How many pressure cookers could he run with anyway?

Are you of the opinion that him being out of bombs was relevant to their search?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 09:58 AM
Your question makes no sense.

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 09:59 AM
Are you of the opinion that him being out of bombs was relevant to their search?

Your question makes no sense.
Actually it makes perfect sense.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:06 AM
Actually it makes perfect sense.

:thumb:

Your question makes no sense.

I presume your comment about him being out of bombs was in response to pawnmowers statement that they could have had more. So the guy was out of bombs. Was that relevant to their search?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:07 AM
To Brainaic it makes sense but it doesn't to me. I was asked the question not you. Of course they would still search for him.

What I see happening with people on this stuff is Battered Citizen Syndrome. No sense arguing with people in that kinda of mental shape.

Life is full of risks. You could just as easily be hit by a car.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:11 AM
No it doesn't. Of course they would still search for him.

Well I meant on HOW they searched for him. Not whether or not they did search for him. I just wanted to clarify that him being out of bombs is not a counterargument to their tactics whether you intended it to be or not.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:17 AM
Well I meant on HOW they searched for him. Not whether or not they did search for him. I just wanted to clarify that him being out of bombs is not a counterargument to their tactics whether you intended it to be or not.

The proper response is a free society—every American who lives in that area should go about their business while openly carrying a pistol, rifle or both. See how long one LONE boy lasts or what terrorist would try it again. Plus there'd be no economic losses.

Instead people prefer their de facto martial law prison. That's not a free people, but then that's Mass, a state that voted by about 70% to keep their income tax...and their governor is now going to raise taxes.

Battered Citizen Syndrome in the Cradle of Liberty. Sad! Brainiac wants to copy it.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:20 AM
The proper response is a free society—every American who lives in that area should go about their business while openly carrying a pistol, rifle or both. See how long one LONE boy lasts or what terrorist would try it again. Plus there'd be no economic losses.

Instead people prefer their de facto martial law prison. That's not a free people, but then that's Mass, a state that voted by about 70% to keep their income tax...and their governor is now going to raise taxes.

Battered Citizen Syndrome in the Cradle of Liberty. Sad! Brainiac wants to copy it.

And how many people would have been injured because of some trigger happy vigilante looking to be a hero?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:23 AM
Look that calls for speculation and conjecture. Maybe the guy who was carjacked could have shot them too earlier on. Did you ever think of that?

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:27 AM
Look that calls for speculation and conjecture. Maybe the guy who was carjacked could have shot them too earlier on. Did you ever think of that?

Of course he could have. He also could have gotten himself killed by pointing or showing a gun at them. Unless it was in his hand before he ever saw them, they had the jump on him from the beginning. Did you ever think of that?

And it takes very little speculation to imagine a civilian getting caught up in crossfire, a bomb exploding, or being misidentified and targeted by either other civilians or cops.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:31 AM
In the meantime he slipped away from thousands of cops.
Look, I am not interested in arguing this with you for hours. We disagree.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:35 AM
You can read this Mr.. There's a pdf. I am looking at the larger picture.

The Militarization of U.S. Domestic Policing
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=924

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 10:47 AM
What is the threshold for Martial Law?

"There is nothing we can do to fully overcome the vulnerability of life, unfortunately. There is something we can do, however, to shield against the vulnerability of liberty. We can start by at least asking questions about whether what is happening in Boston is the best response even to the bloody terror of this week."


We should always question.
http://www.independent.org/publications/tir/article.asp?a=924

LiveSteam
04-22-2013, 10:49 AM
Freeze LIBTARD
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/taigi/taigi1205/taigi120500108/13830112-hand-holding-penis-shape-water-pistol-isolated-on-white-background.jpg

petegz28
04-22-2013, 10:52 AM
Freeze LIBTARD
http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/taigi/taigi1205/taigi120500108/13830112-hand-holding-penis-shape-water-pistol-isolated-on-white-background.jpg

LMAO

I think 3/4 of San Francisco just stopped and dropped to their knees!!!

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 10:59 AM
As far as I can tell no rules were broken, laws evaded, or even stretched in this case. The Constitution was not violated. There is nothing here that you can point to as evidence and say they are increasingly trying to take our freedoms or change the law.

DementedLogic
04-22-2013, 11:03 AM
Issues like this really bring out the hypocrites. I don't see how anyone can identify themselves as a conservative and support involuntary searches without a warrant. The end does not justify the means. We are a nation of laws, and even the government is bound by those laws. The 4th amendment is just as important as the second amendment.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 11:07 AM
As far as I can tell no rules were broken, laws evaded, or even stretched in this case. The Constitution was not violated. There is nothing here that you can point to as evidence and say they are increasingly trying to take our freedoms or change the law.

A another case of Battered Citizen Syndrome on display here.:doh!:

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 11:12 AM
Issues like this really bring out the hypocrites. I don't see how anyone can identify themselves as a conservative and support involuntary searches without a warrant. The end does not justify the means. We are a nation of laws, and even the government is bound by those laws. The 4th amendment is just as important as the second amendment.

Ya' know what else is so stoopid about it— they could have just as easily gotten such a warrant as they can execute the search at any time of day, any day of the week. Since the city was on alert already, don't see how they could not have reached an available judge quickly. The same searches could have then moved forward. Battered citizens are too battered to see this did not have to stop the searches.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 11:12 AM
A another case of Battered Citizen Syndrome on display here.:doh!:

You always complain about the Constitution being attacked and our rights being taken away. If you want to do that you should probably find a different subject than this one. Either that or complain about the 4th itself.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 11:14 AM
You always complain about the Constitution being attacked and our rights being taken away. If you want to do that you should probably find a different subject than this one. Either that or complain about the 4th itself.

You do not tell me what to do. You are not an authority on my life or my choices. I will do whatever I want.

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 11:15 AM
You do not tell me what to do. You are not an authority on my life or my choices. I will do whatever I want.

:LOL:

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 11:16 AM
That's the reaction of someone who has Battered Citizen Syndrome too. The glee of insanity.

loochy
04-22-2013, 11:20 AM
You do not tell me what to do. You are not an authority on my life or my choices. I will do whatever I want.

YOU'RE NOT THE BOSS OF ME

mr. tegu
04-22-2013, 11:25 AM
That's the reaction of someone who has Battered Citizen Syndrome too. The glee of insanity.

Based on the definition of insanity we are all so familiar with, anyone who has engaged in a conversation with you is insane.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 11:28 AM
More Battered Citizen Syndrome.

La literatura
04-22-2013, 11:46 AM
Details have been released today describing the cops attempts to actually get a warrant:

"Magistrate Jones, we've pinpointed the suspected Boston Marathon bomber to a couple of neighborhoods in Watertown. We think he's armed, dangerous, and is likely to set off more bombs, killing and injuring more people than he did on Monday. As the whole nation is watching us find this guy, can we swing by your house to get you to sign off a warrant?"

"Oh golly molly. I just got in the bathroom. I'm about to shower. Can you call Williams?"

"Your honor, Magistrate Williams is really picky about his warrants. He demands them to be on legal size paper, and frankly, we're a little too damn busy to run to Staples and get some. All we have is standard size."

"Can you give me 45 minutes? I'm literally sitting on the edge of the tub in my underwear."

"Your honor, the entire Willow Park neighborhood might be destroyed in 20, 25 minutes. Could we hand it off to Mrs. Jones at your door to give to you?"

"I'm sorry, I've already started the water. Look, call Judge Henry. I'm sorry, I have a routine which corresponds very strictly with my digestive medication. Nobody wants to see that get off-track."

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 11:56 AM
link?

Brainiac
04-22-2013, 11:58 AM
That's the reaction of someone who has Battered Citizen Syndrome too. The glee of insanity.
When Charles Krauthammer coined the term "Bush Derangement Syndrome", it was a clever and effective way to characterize anyone who opposed Bush as being deranged. It was clever and effective because it was original.

Now everybody thinks they are just as clever when they put two words in front of "Syndrome" and use it to stereotype their opponents in an argument.

News flash: it's not clever any more, and it's not effective. It's just boring.

So by all means, please keep using it.

La literatura
04-22-2013, 12:03 PM
link?

Sorry, I heard it on NPR. The discussion with Magistrate Williams was:

"Your Honorable Williams. We need you to help us get the Boston Marathon bomber. Yes. That one. Yes, the one that blew off your neighbor's niece's leg. Yes. Well, we have him pinpointed to a particular location, and we have a very strong reason to believe he is . . . Yes, that's what we need. What's that? Ah, no Your Honor. We only have standard size paper. Yes, I know that you always say 'Law is formality because justice demands order.' Yes, you've told me about your old law professor. You told me that he had passed away a couple of months ago. I'm sorry to hear about it. Things really are kind of grim these days. . . . Well, we had an order from Staples, but we thought they were going to drop it off. Turns out we had to pick it up. You want me to call Judge Henry? Okay, have a nice day."

lcarus
04-22-2013, 12:15 PM
I think they went overboard here. Yes I understand why they did what they did, but I hate to see it.

Anyway, the real question I have is, how the fuck did this kid escape the first time they had him at the 7 god damn 11?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:15 PM
Geez! WBZ-TV reported law enforcement got a search warrant late Monday to search that apartment in Revere. Uh huh, not so difficult.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/16/boston-marathon-search-warrant_n_3089425.html

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:16 PM
I think they went overboard here. Yes I understand why they did what they did, but I hate to see it.

Anyway, the real question I have is, how the **** did this kid escape the first time they had him at the 7 god damn 11?

I know. You know what is so sad, that MIT cop losing his life is what led to them standing out.

La literatura
04-22-2013, 12:23 PM
Breaking news: Law enforcement, starting this morning, is re-entering homes in the Watertown area and has begun arresting residents for drug possession. Cops have been interviewed by Boston media, and one cop said that, "In the midst of searching for the terrorist suspect, who I thought was about to blow up the neighborhood, I had time to open a suspicious looking cookie jar underneath the coffee table in the living room. The cookie jar had "PLAYTIME!" in black magic marker written on its side. That's when I saw half a joint and a bag of what appeared to be Bosnian hitcha huayak [a popular Boston hipster drug]."

Around 12 people have been arrested so far, according to reports.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:27 PM
I just read that there were Cape Cod Police in the Watertown area searched. Do you know how f'ing far Cape Cod is from Watertown? If that can happen so can a warrant. These can be rushed.


http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/04/19/watertown_manhunt_these_are_the_people_whose_houses_are_being_searched.html?wpisrc=obnetwork

jettio
04-22-2013, 12:32 PM
The Text of the Fourth Amendment says:

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.


The Courts say that you have a right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures, but not necessarily that every search requires a warrant or the consent of the homeowner. Reasonableness is determined by a "totality of the circumstances" analysis. There is a presumption against warrantless searches but that does not mean that you will stop every unwanted search by demanding to see a search warrant.

The Warrant clause had to do with the Framers opposition to general warrants to search a lot of places for anything in particular. So BEP's post about getting a search warrant authorizing search of all houses in the area might make the Framers wonder if BEP likes them as much as she says.

In this case, there would not be particularized probable cause for every house so it would be dishonest for any officer to swear out a warrant application and for a judge to sign it.

If any of these homeowners tried to sue saying that their 4th Amendment right to be free from an unreasonable search of their homes was violated, that would be an impossible case to win because there is a concept of qualified immunity that says that the officers had to know that they were violating that right because similar searches had been found constitutionally unreasonable in prior cases.

I think that if anybody filed a suit, the judge most likely would not let it go to trial by saying that the searches were reasonable considering all of the circumstances, but even if constitutionally unreasonable, it was a close enough call that the officers are immune from a lawsuit.

If the officers used excessive force and injured somebody, that might not get dismissed, but I do not know that anything like that happened.

I wonder what the policy was regarding a house that was unoccupied when they knocked and nobody came to the door. Whether or not they forced entry to search those houses would be interesting.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:35 PM
Exigent rule doesn't apply. Exigent does NOT mean emergency...it means immediate response where there is no time to get a warrant. If they could get a warrant for the search in Revere they could have gotten one for a block of homes. Sorry. The greatest good all around is to be safe from govt over reach. Especially, since a WoT is claimed to possibly NEVER end. The War on Drugs already destroyed basic rights and Constitutional protections. Such situations make the people drop their guard.

ex·i·gent (ks-jnt)
adj.
1. Requiring immediate action or remedy. See Synonyms at urgent.
2. Requiring much effort or expense; demanding.

dirk digler
04-22-2013, 12:41 PM
BEP it is the public safety exception.

La literatura
04-22-2013, 12:42 PM
Exigent rule doesn't apply.

If you don't think it applies here (where a known terrorist bomber is hiding out in the neighborhood after having fled from a police murder/robbery and is suspected of having more bombs), please describe a situation where you think it does apply.

demonhero
04-22-2013, 12:44 PM
Seems reasonable in this situation that our 4th amendment rights could be broken to an extent. I don't like the idea that the home owners weren't allowed to stay in their home while these searches occurred. Flip-over my bed and knock down my lamp... I want to make sure I'm right there filming you damaging my property.

LiveSteam
04-22-2013, 12:45 PM
Look at the queers attacking BEP today. When you have had enough BEP. Just throw a dildo into the crowed & watch the fun

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:47 PM
Look at the queers attacking BEP today. When you have had enough BEP. Just throw a dildo into the crowed & watch the fun

Liberals can be bullies when one dissents from their pov. This shows why they are not really liberals but illiberal leftists.
Tolerance for multiculteralism and diversity but not in thought such as political opinions.

ptlyon
04-22-2013, 12:48 PM
How about obeying the law?

Define "the law"

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:50 PM
Define "the law"

LOL It has been....in this thread and before.

La literatura
04-22-2013, 12:52 PM
If you don't think it applies here (where a known terrorist bomber is hiding out in the neighborhood after having fled from a police murder/robbery and is suspected of having more bombs), please describe a situation where you think it does apply.

Can you think of a situation, BEP?

Donger
04-22-2013, 12:54 PM
Ick. Yeah, I'm conflicted. I don't like seeing that (and I don't think anyone does), but this was an extraordinary situation.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:56 PM
Ick. Yeah, I'm conflicted. I don't like seeing that (and I don't think anyone does), but this was an extraordinary situation.

Extraordinary is not a word in the 4th Amendment and the exigent rule doesn't apply to extraordinary situations but to lack of time. There was time to get a warrant...that's what applies. They got one the very day of the bombings to search an apartment in Revere.

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:57 PM
Wonder what woulda' happened if a few people had this at their door and resisted? We need an activist to bring a suit.
They even made non-suspects raise their hands as if they were criminals, when they knew what the guys looked like by then.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_azimCSzqNnc/TSXmlmgX0ZI/AAAAAAAAGjY/Cpv5lUaHD9o/s1600/fourth-amendment1.jpg

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 12:58 PM
I don't see any Exigency Rule or Extraordinary exceptions here:

http://www.utahwildernessatlas.net/images/kos/4th_amendment.jpg

Donger
04-22-2013, 12:59 PM
Extraordinary is not a word in the 4th Amendment and the exigent rule doesn't apply to extraordinary situations but to lack of time. There was time to get a warrant...that's what applies. They got one the very day of the bombings to search an apartment in Revere.

That's fine, but I wouldn't exactly call these searches "unreasonable" either.

And, I'll note the "an apartment" above. That's one, right?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 01:00 PM
That's fine, but I wouldn't exactly call these searches "unreasonable" either.

And, I'll note the "an apartment" above. That's one, right?

Doesn't matter how many. They could have gotten a warrant to search a block of about 20 houses.

Unreasonable should be based on "no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause..."

May I ask what you don't understand about that line?

La literatura
04-22-2013, 01:01 PM
I don't see any Exigency Rule or Extraordinary exceptions here:

http://www.utahwildernessatlas.net/images/kos/4th_amendment.jpg

I see the word "unreasonable." Does that mean anything to you?

Donger
04-22-2013, 01:02 PM
Doesn't matter how many. They could have gotten a warrant to search a block of about 20 houses.

How long does that take? The same as one house?

BucEyedPea
04-22-2013, 01:02 PM
How long does that take? The same as one house?

I covered it earlier in the thread. Read it. You pull this stunt all the time when you arrive later.

Donger
04-22-2013, 01:03 PM
Unreasonable should be based on "no warrants shall issue but upon probable cause..."

May I ask what you don't understand about that line?

I understand it fine. Do you disagree that there was probable cause?