HU&W Posted April 23, 2013 Author Share Posted April 23, 2013 I have no problem with a suspicionless search of an area of interest. I have no problem with homeowners giving consent to search. I do have a problem with coerced consent and/or warrantless search and seizure of private property absent reasonable suspicion. I understand how exigent circumstance is supposed to work and really don't see how it applies in this 20-block search. I also don't really trust the labeling of the video. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that somebody took video of something else, like a drug bust, and labelled it this way on youtube. It could also be that the homeowners got belligerent and made threats to the police, or that there was actionable intelligence on that specific house in the course of the search. I think we'd be hearing more from the hundreds of homeowners who had their 4th amendment rights violated if it really went down like the person who posted the video said it did. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CannonCrashPad Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) And I honestly don't give a ###### about this asshole's rights, he attacked the very country that offered him shelter from the shithole he grew up in. I spent 25 years in service to that country and ######tard liberals don't give a rat's ass about my rights; but they will jump through hoops to defend his. ###### them and all like them! The irony here is that if government were to not care about his rights, as you don't, then that government would NOT be one that provides him shelter from the shithole he came from (where people are jailed or killed on accusation alone on the say of the government, without due process). Instead, if we did not care about his/our rights when faced with the worst among us, then our nation would be a shithole just like the one he came from. Fortunately our nation is better than that, and has proved as such thus far, because others DO CARE about our rights, including his. BTW, I definitely care about your/my rights, and not just the ones I happen to like or agree with, and not just for the Americans I like or agree with. But I do agree, liberal ######tards want to take away our rights. So do conservative ######tards. Edited April 23, 2013 by CannonCrashPad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Speaking of the 4th Amendment... http://www.infowars....-by-swat-teams/ So what would've happened if this had been a non-communist state (like Texas) and the Swat team had barged in on someone armed and ready to defend his family against the terrorist prick? Something like this? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/25/jose-guerena-arizona-_n_867020.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrndPndr Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 So what would've happened if this had been a non-communist state (like Texas) and the Swat team had barged in on someone armed and ready to defend his family against the terrorist prick? Something like this? http://www.huffingto...-_n_867020.html You are mixing apples and chili peppers. The expectation was completely different here, the homeowners knew why Law Enforcement was there. Under other circumstances, like say it is dark, 0300 and one is startled awake by flashlights and shouting - another matter entirely. <SNIP> I also don't really trust the labeling of the video. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that somebody took video of something else, like a drug bust, and labelled it this way on youtube. It could also be that the homeowners got belligerent and made threats to the police, or that there was actionable intelligence on that specific house in the course of the search. I think we'd be hearing more from the hundreds of homeowners who had their 4th amendment rights violated if it really went down like the person who posted the video said it did. Exactly, we weren't there. I think the circumstances in this situation were almost unique. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GrndPndr Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 You can't claim exigent circumstances (I.e. immediate danger) and then proceed to systematically search 20 city blocks and then it turns out the dude was hiding outside their "perimeter". If people wanted to let them in, then by all means but if I opened my door and said "he's not here", the police unless they believe otherwise should move on since a) they have no proof he's even there (or they would have a warrant) and b) they can't prove that I'm in immediate danger (then there's no need for one) I think you are doing a lot of second guessing. Their sworn duty is to uphold the law and conduct their business within those standards. The burden of proof is on the officers to prove now that their 20 block door to door search fell into the immediate danger to each and every occupant in each and every house. They were shooting in the dark and hoping to hit something, which while it may be the best option they had doesn't mean they are above the laws. Actually, the burden will be on the Commonwealth's Attorney and the Police Leadership, if that even gets tested. These guys in the video will hopefully get to go on with their jobs. As for punishment, I respect what they were trying to achieve, maybe some law refreshers for them. Mainly I want someone to hold their feet to the fire and show them that laws apply to them still. Seriously? Send them back to school, so that one of them will raise his hand next time and say, "Sir, this is illegal, I am not going to disturb these people." Their leadership is entirely responsible for them being there and carrying out their actions. One could go a little further and say that Dbag one and two were consequentialist here, and responsible for the entire chain of events. ETA: there's no perfect solution in a free society, because the government is the one restricted, which may seem inconvenient but I would rather have more freedom and the danger associated with it, than more government control and the same danger. Notice what is constant in this equation? The danger,it will always exist, and therefore I will take the freedom. Agreed. Our government needs to be held in check as often as possible when it comes to our civil liberties. However (again), I think this situation was extremely unique. FM Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 You are mixing apples and chili peppers. The expectation was completely different here, the homeowners knew why Law Enforcement was there. Under other circumstances, like say it is dark, 0300 and one is startled awake by flashlights and shouting - another matter entirely. No, I am not. I don't know about you, but if a terrorist asshole is running around on the loose, I'm not going to be sitting in my bathtub in the fetal position unarmed. So what happens when it's dark and they're going door to door doing searches and happen upon someone armed? If you read the article, the guy in Arizona's weapon was on SAFE. He didn't even attempt to shoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 No, I am not. I don't know about you, but if a terrorist asshole is running around on the loose, I'm not going to be sitting in my bathtub in the fetal position unarmed. So what happens when it's dark and they're going door to door doing searches and happen upon someone armed? I think they would probably shoot them or arrest them if they were afraid for their lives. But hey, if you want to bring more guns into a situation where a bunch of law enforcement already have guns and are on edge, there's low visibility, and high tension, then you certainly have the constitutionally protected right to gamble with your life. I'm sure you'll have a nice funeral and get exonerated posthumously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Davies Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Wow, really? Pray tell, give us insight as to how in the hell they were suppose to prevent such an act? That's the problem with you journos, you seem to have the answer to everything after the fact. If your lot is as insightful as you claim to be, you should have known about it as well and report it; but as usual all your brilliance seems to show up a day late and a dollar short. Nice personal attack. There are many questions surrounding whether this was an avoidable failure. I am quite happy to hear someone explain to me that nothing could have been done, but the questions I am asking here as an interested observer (not as a journalist) seem to be similar to the ones that your own government is starting to ask. If it's no longer acceptable to ask open questions here at BO, or to point out the obvious, without a so-called moderator resorting to ad hominen attacks, then what has become of this site? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
10percenttruth Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I think they would probably shoot them or arrest them if they were afraid for their lives. But hey, if you want to bring more guns into a situation where a bunch of law enforcement already have guns and are on edge, there's low visibility, and high tension, then you certainly have the constitutionally protected right to gamble with your life. I'm sure you'll have a nice funeral and get exonerated posthumously. Are you ######ing kidding me? So by that logic, sitting unarmed in the fetal position in the bathtub is the correct response? I know a California congresswoman who would love to shake your hand right now. If the cops illegally kick in a door in the middle of the night and startle a law-abiding, armed citizen, then the resulting firefight is 100% the police's fault. Using the argument of tension and darkness is bullshit too, it just leads to an easy excuse to bypass search & seizure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetter Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 They should have put a $100,000 bounty out on him, dead or a live. He would have been dropped off on the FBI's doorstep hog tied or with a bullet hole in the head. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddy Spike Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I think they would probably shoot them or arrest them if they were afraid for their lives. But hey, if you want to bring more guns into a situation where a bunch of law enforcement already have guns and are on edge, there's low visibility, and high tension, then you certainly have the constitutionally protected right to gamble with your life. I'm sure you'll have a nice funeral and get exonerated posthumously. You never disappoint. Wow. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vetter Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) If the cops illegally kick in a door in the middle of the night and startle a law-abiding, armed citizen, then the resulting firefight is 100% the police's fault. This! And that cop and anyone who's involved in the decision should be charged with manslaughter. I, for the most part, appreciate the work that police do for us, but the militarization of police agencies in this country has got to stop. Edited April 23, 2013 by Vetter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moosepileit Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 We cannot at this point know who knew what and when. What we seem to know is the fugitive was found by someone that took care of and looked after their property. They noticed something different about their boat, and walla. Says a lot about how much $ and energy you can waste vs. people just being smart about how they go about their day. You have one survivor tag the perp from a picture, and one property owner see something change after a day sheltering in place. Armchair- I can see the door to door including clearing in hot pursuit, but even the best of intentions will get a deserved scrutiny. Glad to see they read a citizen their rights. Not glad to see it's not a death-sentence state. Doubt gun laws would have mattered to the pair. Smells like big fish to fry and lots of fingers to cross-point in the coming weeks. It didn't take a hail of bullets from MRAPs, helos and UAVs to catch the guy- did it? Whatever the security before hand, it didn't stop the act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MilitaryToFinance Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 (edited) Ugh. It doesn't matter whose rights you care about at this point, the new precedent has been set. Constitutional rights are no longer rights, they are privileges, to be assigned and revoked at will. Oh the plus side, we'll have great stories to tell our grand kids about living through the systematic dismantling of one of the most seminal documents in human history and the subsequent demise of the republic. Sorry Ben, but I think you knew we wouldn't be able to keep it for long... Rights, what rights? http://politicker.co...have-to-change/ My favorite part has to be this “Look, we live in a very dangerous world. We know there are people who want to take away our freedoms. New Yorkers probably know that as much if not more than anybody else after the terrible tragedy of 9/11,” So instead of worrying about terrorists attacking us to take away your freedom the government is just going to go ahead and let you know you have no freedom. That way the terrorists won't attack us anymore. I swear this guy must have a pair of lightning bolts tattooed on him somewhere under those suits. Edited April 23, 2013 by mappleby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spur38 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Re: The Boston Police House to House search and removal of citizens from their homes video........ Which part of the Constitution is being violated here? How about the 4th Amendment! The Fouth Amendment was intended to create a constitutional buffer between U.S. citizens and the intimidating power of law enforcement. Three componets are here: 1. It establishes a privacy interest by recognizing the right of U.S. citizens to be "secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects." 2. Ot protects this privacy interest by prohibiting searches and seizures that are "unreasonable" or not authorized by a warrant based upon probable cause. 3. It states that no warrant may be issued to a law inforcment officer unless that warrant describes with particularity "the place to be searched., and the persons or things to be seized." The Framers drafted the Fourth Amendment in response to their colonial experience with British officials. Here, clearly Bostonian history repeats itself! Upon a mere suspicion held by British tax collectors issued "general warrants" which permitted blanket door-to door searches of entire neighborhoods without limitation to person or place. This, in my estimation and if the video is accurate, demonstrates something that the normally useless and off tempo ACLU should look into.... We were all anxious to get the bastards but, once again if the video is accurate for what transpired for the Boston Bombings then the officials that gave the cops their marching orders overstepped their bounds and we citizens should be appalled at this gross violation of the 4th Amendment Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waveshaper Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 I would like to know why there is no firm info on the families travels from late1986 to 2001. There are reports out in some media sources that the family was displaced from the Chechen area do to the conflicts. Where did they go, what country or area did they stay in? I suspect that Tamerlan made some lifelong childhood friends during this time of conflict and displacement. These old buddies may be some of the folks he went to reconnect with in the Russian/Chechen area last year (jan-july2012). The guy (Abu Dujana), in the islamic video, looks about the same age as Tamerlan and i would not be surprised if these two and others like them (Islamic Militants) paths had crossed sometime in their childhood. Abu Dujana was killied by Russian special forces in dec 2012 at an apartment building in the city of Makhachkala, Dagestan; which is only a couple of mile away from Tamerlans dads house in Makhachkala. I think his islamic radicalization may be as simple as peer pressure and DNA (ethnic Chechen/muslim). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joe1234 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Are you ######ing kidding me? So by that logic, sitting unarmed in the fetal position in the bathtub is the correct response? I know a California congresswoman who would love to shake your hand right now. If the cops illegally kick in a door in the middle of the night and startle a law-abiding, armed citizen, then the resulting firefight is 100% the police's fault. Using the argument of tension and darkness is bullshit too, it just leads to an easy excuse to bypass search & seizure. Why the hell are you people getting pissed off at me like it's my fucking fault a cop searching your house thinks you're a criminal and shoots you? I'm just telling you what would probably happen. Sitting unarmed in the fetal position or arming up is your decision to make. Decisions have consequences. Bullshit arguments and fault don't seem to matter much if they shoot and kill you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fuzz Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Seriously? Send them back to school, so that one of them will raise his hand next time and say, "Sir, this is illegal, I am not going to disturb these people." Their leadership is entirely responsible for them being there and carrying out their actions. One could go a little further and say that Dbag one and two were consequentialist here, and responsible for the entire chain of events. holy shit dude, "I was just following orders" doesn't fly for a cop who knows better just like it doesn't fly for you and I as military officers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M2 Posted April 23, 2013 Share Posted April 23, 2013 Nice personal attack. There are many questions surrounding whether this was an avoidable failure. I am quite happy to hear someone explain to me that nothing could have been done, but the questions I am asking here as an interested observer (not as a journalist) seem to be similar to the ones that your own government is starting to ask. If it's no longer acceptable to ask open questions here at BO, or to point out the obvious, without a so-called moderator resorting to ad hominen attacks, then what has become of this site? I replied to your comments as a member of this forum. Moderator comments are in bold italics, such as... This thread is done. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts