Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams

[glockmail]

Having lived there myself for over 20 years, I can honestly say I'm not shocked. Mass is a police state and I got out as soon as I could.

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Having lived there myself for over 20 years, I can honestly say I'm not shocked. Mass is a police state and I got out as soon as I could.

http://www.infowars.com/shocking-footage-americans-ordered-out-of-homes-at-gunpoint-by-swat-teams/

Eye opening video. I wonder if they thought the bombers were able to become women overnight too. They knew the identity of the two guys.
If obama gets his way the entire nation will have to suffer that as an everyday event. -Tyr

[Marcus Aurelius]

this video seems excessive, indeed. However, is there any evidence, other than Alex Jones say-so, that this was the rule, rather than the exception during the lock-down and house to house searching? I would expect if this was the rule as Jones implied, we'd have heard from a large number of very upset residents by now.

[jimnyc]

No different than when SWAT goes to a single home - secure the perimeter, secure the home and secure EVERYONE until the clear is given. In this case, the perimeter was the vicinity in which the terrorist had went on the loose. These responders did exactly what they are taught, SWAT and BPD to clear a "crime scene".

[taft2012]

As usual, liberals and pothead conservatives can see nothing beyond their next high.

If the fugitive had gotten into a home and was holding a family member at gunpoint, and was ordering whoever was answering the door to tell the police "No officers, everything's all right in here. No problem. Thanks for stopping by. Hope you get him!"

And of course, if that scenario happened to one of the potheads or liberals, they'd be screaming and Monday morning quarterbacking, "Why didn't the stupid cops come inside anyway to be sure everyone was safe?"

Having to share the country with liberals and pothead conservatives is like being married to a crazy bitch who's never satisfied.

[jimnyc]

As usual, liberals and pothead conservatives can see nothing beyond their next high.

If the fugitive had gotten into a home and was holding a family member at gunpoint, and was ordering whoever was answering the door to tell the police "No officers, everything's all right in here. No problem. Thanks for stopping by. Hope you get him!"

And of course, if that scenario happened to one of the potheads or liberals, they'd be screaming and Monday morning quarterbacking, "Why didn't the stupid cops come inside anyway to be sure everyone was safe?"

Having to share the country with liberals and pothead conservatives is like being married to a crazy bitch who's never satisfied.

Hey, I was a pothead conservative the majority of my adult life. Not all of us get high and think we're liberals! :coffee:

[revelarts]

we love big brother

[jimnyc]

we love big brother

Do you complain all week long and all year long when SWAT teams do the same?

[jimnyc]

What if...

What if SWAT didn't want to offend of "trample on rights" and they only went through yards and left. Then we find out the next day that the terrorist killed 7 people in a house that was right there, but they never looked.

We just look the other way and say "well, at least they didn't hurt my rights"?

[taft2012]

we love big brother

No. That's not your problem. I'll explain your problem to you, Pothead.

You guys constantly bellyache about the "erosion of the rights our Founders bestowed upon us."

That's all unmitigated bullshit, except for gun control. If this manhunt had been done by a posse in 1813, instead of 2013, the searches would have been much more intrusive. Additionally, anything incriminating inside the homes unrelated to the manhunt would have been admissible in court. No Miranda, nothing. That is what the Founders designed.

No, you're not worried about the erosion of rights granted by the Founders, you're worried about losing the judicial procedural benefits granted to criminals by liberal courts over the course of many decades.

Miranda is not a Constitutional right. Abortion is not a Constitutional right. Liberals don't worry about what the Founders intended 220 years ago, they worry about what their liberal colleagues on the courts granted them 20 years ago. In that most telling respect, the Pothead Conservatives are the soulmates of liberals.

[jimnyc]

It's a FACT that if this was an issue thinking it's a possibility he could have been in just one home, they would have done the same. They do the same if it's a business where they fear there is such an issue. In this case, it was a TERRORIST on the loose and they simply went through the town securing locations trying to neutralize a potential threat. They did NO DIFFERENT than they do on other calls (SWAT), but just on a larger scale. It makes NO SENSE to me that we would applaud them if they cleared a home and stopped a threat, but if they clear multiple homes, then it's an issue. This was not an unreasonable search. I would LOVE to see some of the homeowners file suit for an unreasonable search and watch them get laughed out of court.

Or maybe we should just get rid of the FBI and police? Only use them at business locations and pass a law that they can't help on residential property?

[taft2012]

It's a FACT that if this was an issue thinking it's a possibility he could have been in just one home, they would have done the same. They do the same if it's a business where they fear there is such an issue. In this case, it was a TERRORIST on the loose and they simply went through the town securing locations trying to neutralize a potential threat. They did NO DIFFERENT than they do on other calls (SWAT), but just on a larger scale. It makes NO SENSE to me that we would applaud them if they cleared a home and stopped a threat, but if they clear multiple homes, then it's an issue. This was not an unreasonable search. I would LOVE to see some of the homeowners file suit for an unreasonable search and watch them get laughed out of court.

Or maybe we should just get rid of the FBI and police? Only use them at business locations and pass a law that they can't help on residential property?

You're totally missing the point.

What if one of the residents had some heat lamps blazing and some chronic weed growing in plain sight within his or her residence, and the police spotted it?

Which basically, as I've been saying all along, is really their point of contention.

[revelarts]

Do you complain all week long and all year long when SWAT teams do the same?

What if...
What if SWAT didn't want to offend of "trample on rights" and they only went through yards and left. Then we find out the next day that the terrorist killed 7 people in a house that was right there, but they never looked.
We just look the other way and say "well, at least they didn't hurt my rights"?

What if swat did it everyday to everyone's house? Would you say 'well At least I'm alive.' they just wanted to make sure you were safe.

Look none of us knows what the details of circumstances of the video here is about.
no one here can really comment to much other than on the appearance, and make assumptions.

you assume it was absolutely necessary to do all that and that Good police work, i think probably not necessary, and police overkill.
We both can make up reasons why it's is or is not.

HOWEVER in general i can only imagine a very few reasons why that raid and house clearing should have been done.
Ok the bomber is on the streets SOMEWHERE and the police are lookin lookin.
they get a tip of some kind?!! the bomber is in X house!
they then do what we see on the video. FINE PERFECT SENSE THERE.

but i really can't imagine what other scenario they would need to clear the house like that.
I'M GUESSING that all that was done for the cops benefit. there feeling of the security more than for the sake of looking out for anyone.
Because it seems to me that the police are concerned that everyone is a suspect there, old fat men and women. Just like the TSA, but with high powered weapons.

IMO there is NO way a clearing of the house like that makes any sense without some real suspicion that a bomber or accomplices were in THAT house. But just being "in the general area maybe" . naaw. But you think that's appropriate? If you do, then that's mean they should have done it at every house.
to say the least all that looked "excessive", as others put it,
and a waste of police time IMO, if there was no real suspicion of the bomber.
the way that one cop was kinda lounging on the far left it didn't seem they were really concerned the bomber was there.

[jimnyc]

What if swat did it everyday to everyone's house? Would you say 'well At least I'm alive.' they just wanted to make sure you were safe.

That's their job. Do you seriously think they should have just ignored all of the surrounding homes? It was a terrorist on the loose, it wasn't a guess or a hunch, they had a shootout with him. And SWAT DOES do this to EVERY house they encounter, in almost every circumstance - again, that's their jobs to do so.

AGAIN - who's fault is it if they ignored houses just a few steps away from where the suspect was last seen, and 10-20 people were killed as a lack of them going house to house and doing their jobs? Just collateral damage at that point, because they aren't allowed on/in the premises?

And if "I" was in a situation and SWAT smashed my doors down, secured the home, cuffed me and brought me in too, and ended up saving my life - you're dang skippy, I would be on the steps of City Hall begging for them to give medals out.

[revelarts]

No. That's not your problem. I'll explain your problem to you, Pothead.

You guys constantly bellyache about the "erosion of the rights our Founders bestowed upon us."

That's all unmitigated bullshit, except for gun control. If this manhunt had been done by a posse in 1813, instead of 2013, the searches would have been much more intrusive. Additionally, anything incriminating inside the homes unrelated to the manhunt would have been admissible in court. No Miranda, nothing. That is what the Founders designed.

No, you're not worried about the erosion of rights granted by the Founders, you're worried about losing the judicial procedural benefits granted to criminals by liberal courts over the course of many decades.

Miranda is not a Constitutional right. Abortion is not a Constitutional right. Liberals don't worry about what the Founders intended 220 years ago, they worry about what their liberal colleagues on the courts granted them 20 years ago. In that most telling respect, the Pothead Conservatives are the soulmates of liberals.

We have no rights except the right to bear arms... that's great.
What they did in the wild wild west was what the founders meant for law enforcement be like?? did you get you police training from cowboy movies?
All our other rights are the same or better than when the founders... planted weed in their gardens... riiight.

one of the reason the revolution was stirred up was because of house searches similar to the one in the video Taft remember the Writs of Assistance
"Writs of assistance were court orders that authorized customs officers to conduct general (non-specific) searches of premises for contraband. The exact nature of the materials being sought did not have to be detailed, nor did their locations."

so no Taft the founders specifically wrote
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.


----

No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than any [constitutional] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
– Roger B. Taney (1777-1864), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ex parte Milligan, 1866

Emergency does not increase granted power or remove or diminish the restrictions imposed upon power granted or reserved. The Constitution was adopted in a period of grave emergency. Its grants of power to the federal government and its limitations of the power of the States were determined in the light of emergency, and they are not altered by emergency.
– Charles Evans Hughes (1862-1948), Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court, Home Building & Loan Assn v. Blairsdell, 1934

“Experience teaches us to be most on our guard to protect liberty when the government's purposes are beneficent.”
Louis D. Brandeis 1856-1941
Supreme Court Justice

[jimnyc]

so no Taft the founders specifically wrote
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.

Personally, I don't think these cursory searches were even close to being unreasonable, under the circumstances. I'm extremely confident that no court in the land will find these unreasonable either. Like I've said so many times before, SWAT does these searches all the time. To provide precedent that the courts see these searches as unconstitutional should be very easy then.

I hope someone does sue, instead of the many complaining online. I would love to see the SC rule on such an issue.

[taft2012]

We have no rights except the right to bear arms... that's great.
What they did in the wild wild west was what the founders meant for law enforcement be like?? did you get you police training from cowboy movies?
All our other rights are the same or better than when the founders... planted weed in their gardens... riiight.

A veritable army of strawmen.



one of the reason the revolution was stirred up was because of house searches similar to the one in the video Taft remember the Writs of Assistance
"Writs of assistance were court orders that authorized customs officers to conduct general (non-specific) searches of premises for contraband. The exact nature of the materials being sought did not have to be detailed, nor did their locations."

No, not similar in any way at all. This was not a search for contraband.




so no Taft the founders specifically wrote
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.

And who considers it unreasonable to search for a dangerous cop killing terrorist in a neighborhood he was known to be in?



----

No doctrine involving more pernicious consequences was ever invented by the wit of man than any [constitutional] provisions can be suspended during any of the great exigencies of government.
– Roger B. Taney (1777-1864), U.S. Supreme Court Justice, Ex parte Milligan, 1866

Ahhh, Justice Taney of Dred Scot infamy, the mind behind what is universally considered the worse Supreme Court decision in the nation's history.

The simple fact is, you can cite all the Supreme Court justices you care to.... but in the end the search in Boston remains Constitutional, despite all marinol-induced tantrums. And the ability of the police to do so has managed to survive all the efforts of your liberal activist jurists to the contrary.

[revelarts]

That's their job. Do you seriously think they should have just ignored all of the surrounding homes? It was a terrorist on the loose, it wasn't a guess or a hunch, they had a shootout with him. And SWAT DOES do this to EVERY house they encounter, in almost every circumstance - again, that's their jobs to do so.

AGAIN - who's fault is it if they ignored houses just a few steps away from where the suspect was last seen, and 10-20 people were killed as a lack of them going house to house and doing their jobs? Just collateral damage at that point, because they aren't allowed on/in the premises?

And if "I" was in a situation and SWAT smashed my doors down, secured the home, cuffed me and brought me in too, and ended up saving my life - you're dang skippy, I would be on the steps of City Hall begging for them to give medals out.

If they knew or had probable cause to think a bomber was in my house then sure. bust down the door. don't get a warent nothing do what you've got to do.

But if they are just going door to door busting in every houses door for 50 blocks, I might be at city Hall but i won't be begging for medals.
It's there job, is not a probable cause to bust down every door in town.

H3LL there are little girls being abused in homes everyday. women being beatin. every day it MIGHT be happening in ANY HOUSE ON THE STREET!!!!
the police better go door to door and make sure every child is safe and and every women is unmolested. there are pedophiles and wife beaters on the streets RIGHT NOW. I BET you'll find a few people SHOT in homes this week in your town. the POLICE SHOULD BE AT EVERY DOOR with a foot though it to make sure NO ONE DIES. There are KNOWN murderers that have NEVER been caught.
AAAHHH AHHHHH! police do your job!!!

sorry i'm not buying the hype. as bad as the bombing is it's not the end of civilization as we no it. nor a need to suspend the Constitution.
I'm not buying into the hype that a punk criminal must be stopped AT ALL COST.
That we need to give police, military and public officials a blank check.
To many of us are in terror from the terrorist but we are Americans , suppose to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.. that terror stuff shouldn't play here like that.

[revelarts]

[/COLOR]The simple fact is, you can cite all the Supreme Court justices you care to.... but in the end the search in Boston remains Constitutional, despite all marinol-induced tantrums. And the ability of the police to do so has managed to survive all the efforts of your liberal activist jurists to the contrary.

To bad you don't care about the constition or the supreme court, just you own fascist version of constitutionality from novels about 1813 American justice.

It's a horrible shame when the law enforcement people don't really respect the current law and make up there own as they go.

[jimnyc]

If they knew or had probable cause to think a bomber was in my house then sure. bust down the door. don't get a warent nothing do what you've got to do.

But if they are just going door to door busting in every houses door for 50 blocks, I might be at city Hall but i won't be begging for medals.
It's there job, is not a probable cause to bust down every door in town.

H3LL there are little girls being abused in homes everyday. women being beatin. every day it MIGHT be happening in ANY HOUSE ON THE STREET!!!!
the police better go door to door and make sure every child is safe and and every women is unmolested. there are pedophiles and wife beaters on the streets RIGHT NOW. I BET you'll find a few people SHOT in homes this week in your town. the POLICE SHOULD BE AT EVERY DOOR with a foot though it to make sure NO ONE DIES. There are KNOWN murderers that have NEVER been caught.
AAAHHH AHHHHH! police do your job!!!

sorry i'm not buying the hype. as bad as the bombing is it's not the end of civilization as we no it. nor a need to suspend the Constitution.
I'm not buying into the hype that a punk criminal must be stopped AT ALL COST.
That we need to give police, military and public officials a blank check.
To many of us are in terror from the terrorist but we are Americans , suppose to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.. that terror stuff shouldn't play here like that.

They had reason to believe that he could have been in ANY of the houses within a certain radius. It's a guy who just was in a shootout, carjacked someone earlier, killed a cop, almost killed another, oh and was known to be tossing bombs around. It was an active threat and a terrorist running around the vicinity.

Also, they didn't bust down the doors as you are saying, they knocked or rang and took it from there. "If" they did that at all, it certainly wasn't all around town.

The threats you try to compare to are NOT terrorists that can place an entire area in imminent danger from explosives.

I do like how you have avoided my question like 5x now. Who's fault is it if they make a mistake and an entire household was killed? Who's responsibility should that have been? Or do we just shrug our soldiers and say, "well, nothing we could have done to helped, as we didn't have our warrants with us". The cops and other agencies have a responsibility to protect us. So I ask again, WHO would have been held responsible?

[taft2012]

If they knew or had probable cause to think a bomber was in my house then sure. bust down the door. don't get a warent nothing do what you've got to do.



You premise your beliefs on the ignorant notion that a warrant or probable cause is required for all entries into a home.

Not the case. Never has been, not even in the days of the Founders.

Do you seriously believe James Madison would have been waving off the police last week screaming like an ACLU lawyer; "Halt! You must first have probable cause and secure a warrant before entering each and every one of these dwellings!"

No, of course not.

Face it; you're not arguing the case of the Founders. You're arguing the advancement of considerations contemporary liberal activist courts have extended to criminals.

[jimnyc]

To bad you don't care about the constition or the supreme court, just you own fascist version of constitutionality from novels about 1813 American justice.

It's a horrible shame when the law enforcement people don't really respect the current law and make up there own as they go.

The constitution only discussed unreasonable searches. They obviously put unreasonable in there for a reason. But you bring up the SC. Do you have a case or other precedent to show us, where SWAT or other officers were found to have done something unconstitutional, by securing a home and entering it when a potential threat exists? Please post this case...

[aboutime]

To bad you don't care about the constition or the supreme court, just you own fascist version of constitutionality from novels about 1813 American justice.

It's a horrible shame when the law enforcement people don't really respect the current law and make up there own as they go.


Rev. Please tell us you're really not that uninformed. Then, provide some proof that Law Enforcement people who protect you, and your family...do not respect current laws, and also prove...they make their own up as they go.

If any portion of what you said is true. There should be some real, hard facts documented to back them up. Don't you think?

Pretty loose statement coming from someone who claims to be the final arbiter here.

[revelarts]

Rev. Please tell us you're really not that uninformed. Then, provide some proof that Law Enforcement people who protect you, and your family...do not respect current laws, and also prove...they make their own up as they go.
If any portion of what you said is true. There should be some real, hard facts documented to back them up. Don't you think?
Pretty loose statement coming from someone who claims to be the final arbiter here.

that was directed at taft not all law enforcement

[aboutime]

that was directed at taft not all law enforcement


Okay. So it was directed at Taft. Would you please contribute, and back up your assertions, or accusations made previously?
Ranting can come from anywhere, and without documented proof to back up the rant. It means nothing to anyone.

[revelarts]

The constitution only discussed unreasonable searches. They obviously put unreasonable in there for a reason. But you bring up the SC. Do you have a case or other precedent to show us, where SWAT or other officers were found to have done something unconstitutional, by securing a home and entering it when a potential threat exists? Please post this case...

Unreasonable, OK lets stay there.
is it reasonable to search someone home that shows NO sign of trouble. NO.
what if a mad bomber is on the loose... close by?
Depends on how close and if you have a REASON to suspect he may have gone into a house.

just to willy nilly go door to door is not reasonable.
"he may have snuck in a window sir. "
"did anyone see that?"
"no but he might have?"
"I just went to every room officer, no ones here but me"
"but he might be in there it's my JOB, i need to search. move you liberal pothead who might die if i don't."

That's not reasonable. that's guessing. thats fishing.
It's "unreasonable" to search every house for crimes, if your fishing, they'll probably find some.

but here's a reasonable assessment of "unreasonable and probably cause and the court added a category for Police lower than those standards "reasonable suspicion". but they all are higher than what you guys are outlineing here as reasonable search.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/patrol/articles/2011/06/probable-cause-and-reasonable-suspicion.aspx

"Articulating precisely what 'reasonable suspicion' and 'probable cause' mean is not possible. They are commonsense, non-technical conceptions that deal with the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act. As such, the standards are not readily, or even usefully, reduced to a neat set of legal rules." (Ornelas v. U.S.)

Though it may not be possible to articulate precisely what "probable cause" means, the court has offered this guidance:...

It was not until 1968 that the need for a standard lower than PC -Probable Cause- was recognized by the Supreme Court. In Terry v. Ohio,...
This discussion shows why it is a mistake to use the expression "PC -Probable Cause- for the stop," which mismatches a higher level of justification with a lower level of infringement of individual liberty. "In Terry v. Ohio, we held that the police can stop and briefly detain a person for investigative purposes if the officer has a reasonable suspicion supported by articulable facts that criminal activity is afoot, even if the officer lacks probable cause." (U.S. v. Sokolow)

"Probable cause" means reasonably reliable information to suspect there is a "fair probability" that a person has committed a crime, or that a search will reveal contraband or evidence. "Reasonable suspicion" is a strong suspicion, even if based on less information of a less-reliable nature, that a person is involved in criminal activity or may be armed and dangerous.


But just busting into houses going door to door, looking for a suspect, of a past crime a few days ago
no, sorry. not reasonable, no evidence of probably and no real articulatable suspicion for every House.

[jimnyc]

It's simply a difference in opinion on what reasonable and unreasonable mean then. And I think yours is VERY FAR off, but then again, we always knew you were anti-government, anti-police, anti-any type of authority. Like I said earlier though, it's all just good for talk, as no court in the land will find these actions unreasonable under the circumstances. I'm willing to put just about any $$$ on that within my means. Not gonna happen. And the best part is, the fact that it will never happen, AND YOU KNOW IT, will now give you much room to complain about that fact too! :lol:

[taft2012]

To bad you don't care about the constition or the supreme court, just you own fascist version of constitutionality from novels about 1813 American justice.

It's a horrible shame when the law enforcement people don't really respect the current law and make up there own as they go.

Actually, if I didn't care about the Supreme Court or the US Constitution, many arrests would be thrown out of court.

To the contrary, you're just making up stuff as you go along.

But please, entertain us. Perhaps you can enlighten us with some US Supreme Court search and seizure rulings pertaining to state and local law enforcement from the early 1800s.

[taft2012]

Meh, let me save you the trouble:

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/weeks.html


Much of the procedure used in our judicial system has its origins in the common law of England. In English courts, the means by which evidence was found had little to do with whether a judge would admit it into the record. Common law provided (1) that the evidence might be used and (2) that there would be prosecution and punishment of anyone who broke the law to gain the evidence.
Until the eve of World War I, the U.S. Supreme Court used the old common law rule and permitted States and federal courts to admit evidence gained by an illegal search to convict an accused offender. In the late 19th century, as the U.S. system matured, many lawyers began to argue that the 4th Amendment to the Constitution—providing protection against "unreasonable searches and seizures"—was meaningless unless it was interpreted as a prohibition against the use of evidence gained illegally.
It could be said that the 4th Amendment had been dormant and devoid of practical application. It provided little protection except in spirit, until the Weeks case. This landmark decision by the Court became the first modern interpretation of the meaning of the Bill of Rights.


Of course, "illegal search" is a relative term, because it was legal until Weeks. Just like Miranda wasn't a "right" until 1959.

[revelarts]

....
I do like how you have avoided my question like 5x now. Who's fault is it if they make a mistake and an entire household was killed? Who's responsibility should that have been? Or do we just shrug our soldiers and say, "well, nothing we could have done to helped, as we didn't have our warrants with us". The cops and other agencies have a responsibility to protect us. So I ask again, WHO would have been held responsible?
just to show i'm not a dodger...
as i've said several times.

if they have probably cause to go in go in. if they are on a fishing trip and the owner doesn't signal that something is "afoot". and the cops move on. they have done there job. People may be upset. but it's not the cops fault if he's being alert to anything "suspicious".

There job is to search where there's some evidence not assume they can walk into ever home to make sure it's "safe" even when there's no evidence of a problem.

As people we have the responsibility to protect ourselves and the police in cases like this bombing have a responsibility to protect as well but it's NOT at all cost.

like you said, you an i just look at it from different perspectives.

but imagine for a minute you and you wife had a mixed bag of various M&M's but she was deathly allergic to almonds. It Seems like you'd just start taking a bite out them all because almonds are in the vicinity. 'Just in case babe'. I don't think your wife would buy that excuse. The better way is separate out all of the ones that are 1st shaped like nuts. then those shaped like almonds. no need to bother the ones that really don't show ANY sign of almonds.

[revelarts]

Meh, let me save you the trouble:

http://www.phschool.com/atschool/ss_web_codes/supreme_court_cases/weeks.html

Of course, "illegal search" is a relative term, because it was legal until Weeks. Just like Miranda wasn't a "right" until 1959.
didn't you say earlier something like no exactly like
"you can cite all the Supreme Court justices you care to..."
funny how the supreme court has meaning here

but in the end the warrant less searches without probably cause are illegal and the unanimous decision in Weeks shows just how clear the amendment is Taft.

Even though you want to live in a world without it, at all. Even in common law days you were not suppose to go into a mans house and search his stuff.

Semayne’s case [1603] is an old English common law case, which held that a right of a home-owner to defend his/her premises against intrusion should yield to those seeking to enter under lawful authority like to make an arrest. The case was reported by Sir Edward Coke, who was the then Attorney General of England. The case is famous for Coke's quote that, “the house of every one is to him as his castle and fortress, as well for his defense against injury and violence as for his repose.” In the US, this case is recognized as establishing the knock and announce rule.

Entick v Carrington [1765]

This case, decided in England in 1765, established that any trespass unto another person's property must be justified by law through an official warrant handed down by a justice of the peace. According to this ruling, warrants must be specific in nature, and there must also be reasoning for the warrant. Lord Camden made it clear that if a warrant was issued without just cause, said warrant was against the law.

...is a leading case in English law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power. The case has also been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1762, the King's Chief Messenger Nathan Carrington, and three other King's messengers, into the home of writer, John Entick "with force and arms" and seized Entick's private papers. Entick was arrested. The King's messengers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax "to make strict and diligent search for . . . the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers. Entick sought judgment against Carrington and his colleagues who argued that they acted upon Halifax's warrant. A jury returned a special verdict finding that the defendants had broken into Entick's home "with force and arms" and searched for and taken. Judge Camden held that Halifax had no right under statut
SOME cops were doing a lot illegal searches back in olden days. But many search warrants WERE used back in the old days too.
But the Weeks case just reinstated what was already the law. and yes even common law, warrantless searches have been illegal a loooong time.

your house is you castle Taft, even if the popo don't like it.


William Pitt rose before Parliament and declared that "The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England may not enter; all his force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. "
1763

[jimnyc]

just to show i'm not a dodger...
as i've said several times.

if they have probably cause to go in go in. if they are on a fishing trip and the owner doesn't signal that something is "afoot". and the cops move on. they have done there job. People may be upset. but it's not the cops fault if he's being alert to anything "suspicious".

There job is to search where there's some evidence not assume they can walk into ever home to make sure it's "safe" even when there's no evidence of a problem.

As people we have the responsibility to protect ourselves and the police in cases like this bombing have a responsibility to protect as well but it's NOT at all cost.

like you said, you an i just look at it from different perspectives.

but imagine for a minute you and you wife had a mixed bag of various M&M's but she was deathly allergic to almonds. It Seems like you'd just start taking a bite out them all because almonds are in the vicinity. 'Just in case babe'. I don't think your wife would buy that excuse. The better way is separate out all of the ones that are 1st shaped like nuts. then those shaped like almonds. no need to bother the ones that really don't show ANY sign of almonds.

So no one answers, because they are in the back room being held quiet at gunpoint. As a result, the deaths of the entire household are just shit out of luck then? Even though all the authorities in the region know that a terrorist is running around somewhere in the vicinity? You keep saying there is no evidence and no probable cause - this was not a drug raid. There WAS evidence of a terrorist running down the road and WAS probable cause to believe he never left the area. So again, WHO is responsible to secure the area and make sure he didn't run a few doors down and is holding people at gunpoint? I guess the people are on their own unless the terrorist is dumb enough to show his face or allow them to answer the door?

YOU say it's not "at all costs" but YOU are NOT the sole determiner of this. The overwhelming majority of the region where this took places stood outside for HOURS cheering on ALL of the first responders as they left the area. Not everyone is anti-government and anti any type of authority. Guns are slim in Mass and they rely on first responders to help them in such situations.

Rev, some people would rather live, be protected and be reasonable - as opposed to being defiant to make a point.

[Abbey Marie]

just to show i'm not a dodger...
as i've said several times.

if they have probably cause to go in go in. if they are on a fishing trip and the owner doesn't signal that something is "afoot". and the cops move on. they have done there job. People may be upset. but it's not the cops fault if he's being alert to anything "suspicious".

There job is to search where there's some evidence not assume they can walk into ever home to make sure it's "safe" even when there's no evidence of a problem.

As people we have the responsibility to protect ourselves and the police in cases like this bombing have a responsibility to protect as well but it's NOT at all cost.

like you said, you an i just look at it from different perspectives.

but imagine for a minute you and you wife had a mixed bag of various M&M's but she was deathly allergic to almonds. It Seems like you'd just start taking a bite out them all because almonds are in the vicinity. 'Just in case babe'. I don't think your wife would buy that excuse. The better way is separate out all of the ones that are 1st shaped like nuts. then those shaped like almonds. no need to bother the ones that really don't show ANY sign of almonds.

I would argue that they did have probable cause to believe the terrorist was in one of the houses in that neighborhood. Which one? They didn't know. Why should my house be off limits because I know I am not harboring a terrorist? The police don't know that. That strikes me as a "not in my neighborhood" argument. "Catch that guy, but don't dare come into my house to do it".

[jimnyc]

I would argue that they did have probable cause to believe the terrorist was in one of the houses in that neighborhood. Which one? They didn't know. Why should my house be off limits because I know I am not harboring a terrorist? The police don't know that. That strikes me asa "not in my neighborhood" argument. "Catch that guy, but don't dare come into my house to do it".

Yup, perfectly stated. Many of the people complaining about the steps they took are the same ones who complained that not enough was done in 1993, 9/11 and other places and times of terror activities. The bitching will be done no matter what happens, so long as they are talking about police or other authorities, which apparently is one of our new enemies, while they are in the midst of fighting terrorism for us, and I mean that literally.

[revelarts]

Yup, perfectly stated.


It's more like catch the guy but if you don't have any reason to show me that he's in my house why search it?

why is it that you guys keep trying to turn my position into
'Don't search my house ever.'
I say don't search my house if you don't have any good reason to believe he's in my house.
go through my yard, all you want. But sorry i don't think hes in here you've got no good reason to think he's here either. so no. you can't come in.

He might be in the neighborhood, is good enough for you guys, but not for me. It's to broad. to general, to vague.

"your window is broken and open in the back sir"
"OK please come in and search."

But I guess we won't agree.
and Jim i know you love the gov't and think they never do you wrong, and they should only be praised and never questioned unless they democrats. :poke:
But i take all our rights kinda seriously and if we don't exercise them, even in times of stress, we can lose them.
they are unique to the world. Give them away and your kids may not find themselves in a world were the gov't is as trust worthy as you imagine our to be now.




Many of the people complaining about the steps they took are the same ones who complained that not enough was done in 1993, 9/11 and other places and times of terror activities. The bitching will be done no matter what happens, so long as they are talking about police or other authorities, which apparently is one of our new enemies, while they are in the midst of fighting terrorism for us, and I mean that literally.
I never complained that they should have gone house to house to caught anyone.

In 1993 the FBI was working with some of the bombers.
In 911 ..well.. they had plenty of evidence... reason .. to search various people and stop various people,
They had some conversations and intel from various sources.

reasonable, probably.

No need to go house to house, fishing.
no need to give up ANY rights

[glockmail]

I would argue that they did have probable cause to believe the terrorist was in one of the houses in that neighborhood. Which one? They didnt know. Why should my house be off limits because I know I am not harboring a terrorist? The police don't know that. That strikes me as a "not in my neighborhood" argument. "Catch that guy, but don't dare come into my house to do it".

I would argue that if there is no evidence that the house was broken into, and if the doors and windows are locked, and the cop knocks on the door and the owner tells him that they have been locked, and that no one has broken in and no one meeting the description of the suspect lives there, then there is no probable cause.

The way I look at it, there has to be an assumption of innocence of the owner of the house. But again, this is Massachusetts, a police state, and you are assumed guilty until you prove otherwise.

[jimnyc]

I doubt it's just Mass. I would love to see someone bring it on a federal level or all the way to the SC. That's really all it would boil down to, as to whether the courts see quick cursory searches while looking for a terrorist, to be unreasonable or not.

[Abbey Marie]

I would argue that if there is no evidence that the house was broken into, and if the doors and windows are locked, and the cop knocks on the door and the owner tells him that they have been locked, and that no one has broken in and no one meeting the description of the suspect lives there, then there is no probable cause.

The way I look at it, there has to be an assumption of innocence of the owner of the house. But again, this is Massachusetts, a police state, and you are assumed guilty until you prove otherwise.

As long as the police do not attempt to arrest the homeowner for anything unrelated that they might happen to see while they are in there, I'm ok with it.

[aboutime]

As long as the police do not attempt to arrest the homeowner for anything unrelated that they might happen to see while they are in there, I'm ok with it.


Abbey. Something new to add to this story I'm almost sure. Nobody has bothered to recognize, or think about. But. Just today.
I learned that multiple Supportive Websites have been established, demanding that the YOUNG BOMBER in the hospital be released, and even set free.
If I was a Boston, or Watertown cop. Or a member of the Mass. State Police, or FBI searching for him last week.
Knowing so many people are supportive of the bomber. Why wouldn't they try to hide him from police searches.

With that in mind. That ends my discussion of this thread. Understanding the high tempo of what took place, and potential harm another police officer, or civilian might face.
THE SEARCHES BY SWAT AT GUNPOINT WERE......Justified. Period.

[revelarts]

Abbey. Something new to add to this story I'm almost sure. Nobody has bothered to recognize, or think about. But. Just today.
I learned that multiple Supportive Websites have been established, demanding that the YOUNG BOMBER in the hospital be released, and even set free.
If I was a Boston, or Watertown cop. Or a member of the Mass. State Police, or FBI searching for him last week.
Knowing so many people are supportive of the bomber. Why wouldn't they try to hide him from police searches.

With that in mind. That ends my discussion of this thread. Understanding the high tempo of what took place, and potential harm another police officer, or civilian might face.
THE SEARCHES BY SWAT AT GUNPOINT WERE......Justified. Period.

if there's no probable cause, it's not justified. Period. get a warrant.

[aboutime]

if there's no probable cause, it's not justified. Period. get a warrant.

Rev. Looks to me like it's a little late. If there was any damage done. They didn't consult, or ask you. So. You lose.

[logroller]

No. That's not your problem. I'll explain your problem to you, Pothead.

You guys constantly bellyache about the "erosion of the rights our Founders bestowed upon us."

That's all unmitigated bullshit, except for gun control. If this manhunt had been done by a posse in 1813, instead of 2013, the searches would have been much more intrusive. Additionally, anything incriminating inside the homes unrelated to the manhunt would have been admissible in court. No Miranda, nothing. That is what the Founders designed.

No, you're not worried about the erosion of rights granted by the Founders, you're worried about losing the judicial procedural benefits granted to criminals by liberal courts over the course of many decades.

Miranda is not a Constitutional right. Abortion is not a Constitutional right. Liberals don't worry about what the Founders intended 220 years ago, they worry about what their liberal colleagues on the courts granted them 20 years ago. In that most telling respect, the Pothead Conservatives are the soulmates of liberals.
Is being secure in your house from unreasonable search and seizure a constitutional right?
iirc, something about the place to be searched and items to be seized is in there.
On the point of gun control, an associate of mine was about one mile from the perimeter security zone in Boston and has a undetermined number of weapons in his possession. Now what would have happened had he been confronted by an armed search party... Another Jose Guerena incident???


You're totally missing the point.

What if one of the residents had some heat lamps blazing and some chronic weed growing in plain sight within his or her residence, and the police spotted it?

Which basically, as I've been saying all along, is really their point of contention.
And what would have happened in 1813? Seeing as how many of the founding fathers grew hemp, I'm guessing the electric lamp would have been of great interest, not the chronic weed. (Btw: heat lamps aren't used for growing plants, full spectrum lights are. )

[revelarts]

Rev. Looks to me like it's a little late. If there was any damage done. They didn't consult, or ask you. So. You lose.

If i lose, i think we all lose A.T..

[logroller]

As long as the police do not attempt to arrest the homeowner for anything unrelated that they might happen to see while they are in there, I'm ok with it.
Bingo. As long as the discovery is prescriptive of the conditions which warranted the reasonable search, all is well. But if they bust in and note that I'm remodeling my kitchen without a permit, unless they have reason to believe that terrorists are known contractors, its not a plain view discovery.

[revelarts]

Bingo. As long as the discovery is prescriptive of the conditions which warranted the reasonable search, all is well. But if they bust in and note that I'm remodeling my kitchen without a permit, unless they have reason to believe that terrorists are known contractors, its not a plain view discovery.
2 things:
1. you've assumed that they've asked and not insisted to search.

2. you have zero legal expectation that they should or will restrict themselves to a range your comfortable with.

Like the others have said about the terrorist in the basement,
what if Taft searches and finds a 30 pound clear trash bag full of WEED. Is he going to leave without some action? Would he be able to think about finding a terrorist once he's found the root of all evil?

[taft2012]

didn't you say earlier something like no exactly like
"you can cite all the Supreme Court justices you care to..."
funny how the supreme court has meaning here

Yes I did, no it's not funny. You were posting quotes disconnected from any Constitutional rulings, particularly on search and seizure. What I just posted points out that search and seizure rulings were virtually non-existent up until the early 20th century, and refers to an actual ruling. IOW, it has context and relevance, which was lacking in the quotes you posted.


but in the end the warrant less searches without probably cause are illegal and the unanimous decision in Weeks shows just how clear the amendment is Taft.

For the second time in this thread, and probably the 100th time since I joined this forum, warrantless seaerches are *NOT* necessarily unconstitutional. There are numerous rulings on this.


Even though you want to live in a world without it, at all.


Ahhhh, the liberal knee jerk. "You oppose Roe vs. Wade because you want women to be mutilated in back alley abortions!"

[quote]Even in common law days you were not suppose to go into a mans house and search his stuff.

The police went into houses and places business as a common practice. That was the issue in Weeks. If the police "were not supposed to", then any evidence obtained would have been inadmissible. Which it wasn't.



SOME cops were doing a lot illegal searches back in olden days.

No. They were legal searches. The evidence was brought before judges who allowed the evidence to be admitted into court.

In 1875 would it have been incorrect to say people illegally owned slaves in 1850?
In 2013 would it be correct to say police illegally arrested abortionists in 1960?

Do you understand how court rulings work?


warrantless searches have been illegal a loooong time.

For the third time in this thread, no they have not. I sense a wide learning curve here.


your house is you castle Taft, even if the popo don't like it.

Or in your case, your house is your greenhouse.

[quote]
William Pitt rose before Parliament and declared that
"The poorest man may, in his cottage, bid defiance to all the forces of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow through it; the storm may enter, the rain may enter, but the King of England may not enter; all his force dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement. "
1763

But which was done on a regular basis here in the USA prior to 1914. Which brings us back to what I've been saying all along. The Pothead Conservative contention that today's "rights" are sacrosanct because they are what the Founders intended is utter horseshit. And BTW, you clearly owe me an apology for saying my portrayal of search and seizures in 1813 came out of a novel.

Clearly, it was your notion of how law enforcement operated in those days that was pure fiction.

The Weeks decision of 1914 is no different than Roe vs. Wade. A shyster lawyer hooks up with liberal activist judges and together they all go "Eureka! Look at this Constitutional right we just found that no one else even knew existed until we came along with our brilliant brains."

Clearly, up until Weeks nobody, even the Founders, thought it was "unreasonable" for the police to look for evidence when they suspected someone was engaged in criminal activity. Even today, that still doesn't sound terribly unreasonable to me. But then again, I don't approach these matters from the perspective of looking to protect criminals from the laws of the people.

Law enforcement searched for evidence wherever they thought it was; whether it was in a home, in a place of business, or involved stopping a person and searching them.

If you're a liberal and you like it when the courts "find" these new rights that never existed before, then fine. Just say so. But don't sully the good names of the Founders by saying this crap is what they intended. What they intended was what chugged along for about the first 125 years of this republic.

After that, the liberals began a campaign of legislating through the judiciary. It is the results of that legislating through the judiciary that you find appealing. Like most liberals do. And unlike what the Founders envisioned.

[taft2012]

I would argue that they did have probable cause to believe the terrorist was in one of the houses in that neighborhood.

Abbey, you need not accept the false premise of the Pothead Conservatives that probable cause was needed for this search. It was not. There are numerous situations that allow warrantless searches, no matter how many times they repeat their liberal mantra to the contrary.

The Founders would be spinning in their graves if they could see the landmark document they put forth being distorted in this manner to aid and abet sub-human terrorists like this.

As I said, the legality of a search like this wouldn't have even warranted a discussion in 1813. Now the liberals and Pothead Conservatives run around like it would have been unthinkable to do a search like this in the days of the Founders, and that our rights given to us by the Founders are slowly being erased.

Ridiculous. What they're really talking about is the rights given to criminals by activist liberal courts.

[revelarts]

No. They were legal searches. The evidence was brought before judges who allowed the evidence to be admitted into court.

In 1875 would it have been incorrect to say people illegally owned slaves in 1850?
In 2013 would it be correct to say police illegally arrested abortionists in 1960?

Do you understand how court rulings work?

.

Entick v Carrington [1765]

This case, decided in England in 1765, established that any trespass unto another person's property must be justified by law through an official warrant handed down by a justice of the peace. According to this ruling, warrants must be specific in nature, and there must also be reasoning for the warrant. Lord Camden made it clear that if a warrant was issued without just cause, said warrant was against the law.

...is a leading case in English law establishing the civil liberties of individuals and limiting the scope of executive power. The case has also been influential in other common law jurisdictions and was an important motivation for the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In 1762, the King's Chief Messenger Nathan Carrington, and three other King's messengers, into the home of writer, John Entick "with force and arms" and seized Entick's private papers. Entick was arrested. The King's messengers were acting on the orders of Lord Halifax "to make strict and diligent search for . . . the author, or one concerned in the writing of several weekly very seditious papers. Entick sought judgment against Carrington and his colleagues who argued that they acted upon Halifax's warrant. A jury returned a special verdict finding that the defendants had broken into Entick's home "with force and arms" and searched for and taken. Judge Camden held that Halifax had no right under statute


obviouslyyou don't understand.
you are one to insist on his POV despite the facts.

the case above and the others i've note clearly show that Warrant were issued and required prior too Weeks
for some reason you ignore those case AND
the facts the the founders wrote the words WARRANTS and SEARCH in the same clause and it meant what it said.

in most of the State Bills of Right, It was written into law and the founders all understood the idea of warrants the same basic as we do today SEE CASE ABOVE and wrote often about the evils of General search warrants. And No search warrant. and OTIS made a case against it and it became part of the air that stirred the revolution.

But you ignore all of that and try to make case for some alleged bad practices, ARE law.

when Clearly the founders wrote that warrant should be required in searches.
"There are other essential rights, which we have justly understood to be the rights of freemen; as freedom from hasty and unreasonable search warrants, warrants not founded on oath, and not issued with due caution, for searching and seizing men's papers, property, and persons."

you say there should not be warrants if the police know better.

I'll go with the founders, and common law, and Weeks myself.


"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."

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


Seem to me some people on the left want to read the 2nd amendment the same way you want to read the 4th.

Shall not be violated doesn't REALLY mean not be VIOLATED.
they want to camp on Militia you and other want to camp on unreasonable as if that Mean a WILD GUESS and negates all the rest of the amendment.

just read whats there, it's the law at the fed level and the states have the same amendments.

I'm sorry the law is a problem for you. and you refuse to acknowledge the constitution you've sworn to uphold.

[taft2012]

Wow. That's pretty desperate there.

Citing a case decided in England, 25 years before the Constitution was even written, to declare something unconstitutional in the USA.

But I'll play along; can you cite a local law enforcement case prior to Weeks where evidence obtained in violation of this English precedent was ruled inadmissible in a court in the USA?

[revelarts]

Wow. That's pretty desperate there.

Citing a case decided in England, 25 years before the Constitution was even written, to declare something unconstitutional in the USA.

But I'll play along; can you cite a local law enforcement case prior to Weeks where evidence obtained in violation of this English precedent was ruled inadmissible in a court in the USA?

I don't have to
1st of all it's clearly written into the federal and state laws at the foundation.

and 2nd you've already acknowledged that Common law was/is part of American law and practice in one of your previous post

[taft2012]

I don't have to
1st of all it's clearly written into the federal and state laws at the foundation.

and 2nd you've already acknowledged that Common law was/is part of American law and practice in one of your previous post



"Clearly written into the federal and state laws at the foundation" yet nobody figured out what it meant until 1914?

Sounds just like Roe vs. Wade. It was there all along, it just required some brilliant liberal minds to along and recognize the "emanation of a penumbra."

[aboutime]

Wow. That's pretty desperate there.

Citing a case decided in England, 25 years before the Constitution was even written, to declare something unconstitutional in the USA.

But I'll play along; can you cite a local law enforcement case prior to Weeks where evidence obtained in violation of this English precedent was ruled inadmissible in a court in the USA?


taft. Don't fall for Rev's attempts to convince everyone..Only Rev knows everything, and we are not permitted to offer, suggest, or disclose anything unless Rev gives his Seal of Approval first.
Otherwise. Rev is nothing but an invisible BUSY BODY who wishes his name was ROBERT.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

. Rev, some people would rather live, be protected and be reasonable - as opposed to being defiant to make a point.

Being defiant to make a point is what gave rise to this nation Jim.

This is a very close call because of the nature of the need to protect public safety. Yet public safety can not be used to override all ! As in a corrupted government could easily used fake public safety concerns to trample privacy rights and other rights. In fact, have done so in the past already. I sympathize with your stand but also do the same with the Rev. on this one .

It is indeed a very fine line and we so often see the terrorist force use to cross that line. In fact, that is a big part of what they are attempting to do--divide us! Obama does this for them as he insults our allies and seeks to take our 2nd Amendment rights away.
The 2nd protects the first. The 2nd goes then so soon will the first and after that its dictatorship.
Public safety can not become a cover -all for government trampling our rights. For if it does we are all doomed...

A hard and close call which to side with on this particular example.
I will have to go with the Rev. on this specific case simply because of Obama and his agenda. I see his using this to create a storm trooper type force and then strip us of more Constitutional rights.
We both know he is that type.--Tyr

[jimnyc]

Is being secure in your house from unreasonable search and seizure a constitutional right?

Only the nutters and anti-authority types are screaming that this was unreasonable. A known terrorist was within the vicinity. It was not unreasonable to search as much as possible in order to perhaps stop another terror attack.

[jimnyc]

Something in "courts" 250 years ago really has jack shit to do with today. They placed "unreasonable" in the COTUS for a reason. Either a search is reasonable, or it's unreasonable. Anyone stating either right now is just guessing. Nonetheless, I'll be taking $$$ bets with anyone who thinks this sees a court and they declare it unconstitutional! PM me with your bets!

[glockmail]

As long as the police do not attempt to arrest the homeonwer for anything unrelated that they might happen to see while they are in there. I'm ok with it. That would be a blatant violation of established principles, and any prosecution would get tossed out of court without hesitation.

But I think its an obvious violation even with out that, as the cops have no reason to suspect that the suspect is in the house.

In a practical sense, this type of action is a waste of time. These are dense neighborhoods (I lived in that town, and the street looks eerily familiar), in many cases two houses share a common driveway. A more effective approach would be to talk to the owner and search the yards. The fact that he was eventually found in a yard, by a resident, reinforces this.

[glockmail]

Something in "courts" 250 years ago really has jack shit to do with today. They placed "unreasonable" in the COTUS for a reason. Either a search is reasonable, or it's unreasonable. Anyone stating either right now is just guessing. Nonetheless, I'll be taking $$$ bets with anyone who thinks this sees a court and they declare it unconstitutional! PM me with your bets!

It won't see a court because this is Massachusetts. Folks there realize that they live in a police state and like it. And there was no harm done, so there is no plaintiff.

[jimnyc]

I guess if a terrorist/murderer or similar is on the loose, last sighted running down Avenue A with a gun in his hand, after tossing an IED at police- all he has to do is find ANY home to infiltrate and call it "safe zone" from the police.

[jimnyc]

It won't see a court because this is Massachusetts. Folks there realize that they live in a police state and like it. And there was no harm done, so there is no plaintiff.

Some taking the videos were complaining, they can do so in courts. But hell, the ACLU and others not involved can still bring it to court, politicians can bring it to the Senate and further. Getting the actions into court and contesting them would be fairly easy, "winning" or having such actions declared unconstitutional would be the difficult part.

[revelarts]

Something in "courts" 250 years ago really has jack shit to do with today. They placed "unreasonable" in the COTUS for a reason. Either a search is reasonable, or it's unreasonable. Anyone stating either right now is just guessing. Nonetheless, I'll be taking $$$ bets with anyone who thinks this sees a court and they declare it unconstitutional! PM me with your bets!

the whole constitution was written 200 + years ago does that mean it's relevant too.
The court cases i cite are cited in various supreme court cases by the justices.
Common law and old English law and precedents are the foundation of our legal system and is usually only tossed out by those on the left.

And why is unreasonable the only 200 year old word that's still valid in the forth amendment to you.
is "unreasonable" the only word in the amendment?
it sounds just like the 2nd amendment haters use of the word "militia" to try to negate the right to bear arms.

the writing is clear and i posted from a police site that explains what reasonable leans toward. and that's POSITIVE evidence of Specifics.
There has to be something positive about a specific house, car, person or property that would give cause.

[jimnyc]

the whole constitution was written 200 + years ago does that mean it's relevant too.
The court cases i cite are cited in various supreme court cases by the justices.
Common law and old English law and precedents are the foundation of our legal system and is usually only tossed out by those on the left.

And why is unreasonable the only 200 year old word that's still valid in the forth amendment to you.
is "unreasonable" the only word in the amendment?
it sounds just like the 2nd amendment haters use of the word "militia" to try to negate the right to bear arms.

the writing is clear and i posted from a police site that explains what reasonable leans toward. and that's POSITIVE evidence of Specifics.
There has to be something positive about a specific house, car, person or property that would give cause.

I don't adhere to old English law, regardless of what effect it had on our laws. We go by the COTUS and our other laws as defined. NONE of your cases posted have anything at all to do with SWAT and similar securing locations and the constitutionality of their doing so without permission.

[revelarts]

I don't adhere to old English law, regardless of what effect it had on our laws. We go by the COTUS and our other laws as defined. NONE of your cases posted have anything at all to do with SWAT and similar securing locations and the constitutionality of their doing so without permission.

look them up and see if they don't apply to laws today.

[jimnyc]

look them up and see if they don't apply to laws today.

Is there anything in there about public policy exception to the miranda rights? Oh, that's right, that's something the SC has allowed in current times. Times change and certain laws change with the times. The constitution remains the same and it's just a matter of how people read it. People argue the 2nd, the 1st and many other parts of the COTUS, and I'm of the belief that these searches were reasonable.

[glockmail]

Some taking the videos were complaining, they can do so in courts. But hell, the ACLU and others not involved can still bring it to court, politicians can bring it to the Senate and further. Getting the actions into court and contesting them would be fairly easy, "winning" or having such actions declared unconstitutional would be the difficult part.

Bostonians are loud mouths and love to complain about their rights being violated, but then they vote for more Deomcrats who violate those rights.

The ACLU first has to find a victim who has been damaged. They can't sue anybody because they themselves are offended.

Regards to the Senate, a senator from Massachusetts would have to bring it up, and they're Democrats, who of course support a police state.

[jimnyc]

Bostonians are loud mouths and love to complain about their rights being violated, but then they vote for more Deomcrats who violate those rights.

The ACLU first has to find a victim who has been damaged. They can't sue anybody because they themselves are offended.

Regards to the Senate, a senator from Massachusetts would have to bring it up, and they're Democrats, who of course support a police state.

I'm confident that there has to be at least ONE household that was upset with having their home searched for a terrorist. I'm no attorney, but I also think any citizen of that area can file a civil lawsuit based on rights. Hell, we have all spectrums of political beliefs in our senate, I'm sure at least one of them will bring it up and have the courts decide. There's got to be one politician out there that will get the ball rolling.

[Abbey Marie]

That would be a blatant violation of established principles, and any prosecution would get tossed out of court without hesitation.

But I think its an obvious violation even with out that, as the cops have no reason to suspect that the suspect is in the house.

In a practical sense, this type of action is a waste of time. These are dense neighborhoods (I lived in that town, and the street looks eerily familiar), in many cases two houses share a common driveway. A more effective approach would be to talk to the owner and search the yards. The fact that he was eventually found in a yard, by a resident, reinforces this.

I agree with the bolded, but I am countering Rev's assertion that people need to fear the searches in this extreme case of public safety. Any unrelated criminal evidence that would arise would certainly be inadmissable. Given we agree there is no fear of prosecution, what exactly is so important about the homeowner's privacy, that it should trump attempts to find a terrorist bomber/recent cop killer on the loose in your neighborhood?

I'd also like to know which SWAT/police guy would take the time in this exigent and extremely tense situation, to start looking through the house or even noticing some pot plants. Ain't happening; not even by taft. ;)

[Abbey Marie]

I don't adhere to old English law, regardless of what effect it had on our laws. We go by the COTUS and our other laws as defined. NONE of your cases posted have anything at all to do with SWAT and similar securing locations and the constitutionality of their doing so without permission.

We could theoretically adhere to the common law, had we not decades of case law on the 4th Amendment to turn to. Enough for the bulk of a semester of a criminal procedure law school class.

[logroller]

Only the nutters and anti-authority types are screaming that this was unreasonable. A known terrorist was within the vicinity. It was not unreasonable to search as much as possible in order to perhaps stop another terror attack.
When said government proscribes the means by which I can defend my own home through assorted firearms restrictions, the conditions are ripe for many a government intrusion to be reasonably necessary. Doesn't mean I'm antigovernment or a nutter for pointing out the circular reasoning. Not to mention, the terrorist wasn't in the area being searched, he was outside the established perimeter and was found by a citizen. I'm not trying to be a Monday morning qback, but the fact is those areas searched under exigent circumstance didn't result in an arrest, and whatever security/protection that the searches were/are intended to deliver was nothing more than a good feeling-- that same feeling, and then some, I have within the confines of my own home with a shotgun/pistol/rifle.

[Robert A Whit]

When said government proscribes the means by which I can defend my own home through assorted firearms restrictions, the conditions are ripe for many a government intrusion to be reasonably necessary. Doesn't mean I'm antigovernment or a nutter for pointing out the circular reasoning. Not to mention, the terrorist wasn't in the area being searched, he was outside the established perimeter and was found by a citizen. I'm not trying to be a Monday morning qback, but the fact is those areas searched under exigent circumstance didn't result in an arrest, and whatever security/protection that the searches were/are intended to deliver was nothing more than a good feeling-- that same feeling, and then some, I have within the confines of my own home with a shotgun/pistol/rifle.

Given the cops knew exactly what the bombers looked like, if resenting the cops forcing out the proper inhabitants of homes, treating them the way criminals get treated, It seems any normal person would not be called a nutter for valuing their residences. I was in shock viewing that video. We learned today on the Ricin matter that the cops put the wrong man in jail and it looks as if he will collect a big check.

Maybe those in the video will also get whole with a huge check. Then my problem is gone. Sadly the other property owners would then get punished for the way the cops acted.

[jimnyc]

When said government proscribes the means by which I can defend my own home through assorted firearms restrictions, the conditions are ripe for many a government intrusion to be reasonably necessary. Doesn't mean I'm antigovernment or a nutter for pointing out the circular reasoning. Not to mention, the terrorist wasn't in the area being searched, he was outside the established perimeter and was found by a citizen. I'm not trying to be a Monday morning qback, but the fact is those areas searched under exigent circumstance didn't result in an arrest, and whatever security/protection that the searches were/are intended to deliver was nothing more than a good feeling-- that same feeling, and then some, I have within the confines of my own home with a shotgun/pistol/rifle.

Even if it were a mandatory gun ownership town, my defense of the first responders would remain the same. The people's ability to defend themselves with their own weapons, aka guns, or restrictions, is an entirely different issue anyway. I'm far from certain that anyone with a pistol would respond appropriately to someone that perhaps has an IED.

The entire operation as a whole is what put him in that backyard, wounded, hiding in a boat. It's too easy to look at it in retrospect and call the search a failure based on where he was ultimately located. For all we know, had they not performed searches, he could still be sitting in someone's basement where they weren't allowed to search, or still holding someone hostage. The intensity of the operation, size and quickness is what got them shot so quickly and cornered.

If this guy was holding a family of 9 hostage, and SWAT came across this house, and took him down and saved their lives, everyone would be saying what a great job they did in subduing the subject and they are heroes.

[jimnyc]

treating them the way criminals get treated, It seems any normal person would not be called a nutter for valuing their residences.

Criminals rarely get let go mere seconds/minutes after coming into contact with the authorities. Their residences were never in harm. not unless there was a terrorist in there anyway. At worst, a few people razzled as this isn't what normally happens on a Wednesday or Thursday evening. Then again, people were razzled a bit around the country as a result of these attacks and subsequent shooting of a few cops, one fatally.

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=633827#post633827)

treating them the way criminals get treated, It seems any normal person would not be called a nutter for valuing their residences.



Criminals rarely get let go mere seconds/minutes after coming into contact with the authorities. Their residences were never in harm. not unless there was a terrorist in there anyway. At worst, a few people razzled as this isn't what normally happens on a Wednesday or Thursday evening. Then again, people were razzled a bit around the country as a result of these attacks and subsequent shooting of a few cops, one fatally.

I wonder, since everybody knew what the boys looked like, and had the cops forced your family out into the street, realizing you don't look like either youth, would you have been happy to get that same treatment?

I feel sorry for the residents. They were treated like criminals.

As I say, they may also collect money.

[jimnyc]

I wonder, since everybody knew what the boys looked like, and had the cops forced your family out into the street, realizing you don't look like either youth, would you have been happy to get that same treatment?

I feel sorry for the residents. They were treated like criminals.

As I say, they may also collect money.

I would have been THRILLED to be apart of them hunting down this scumbag. After they gave the all clear, I would have shaken as many hands as possible for their efforts. I would have no second thoughts about them doing a quick search for my safety, their safety and the perhaps apprehension of a terrorist. I wouldn't dare stop them from performing their jobs, a job in which they risk their lives for those very same residents. I don't feel sorry for the residents, and so many from that neighborhood stood along the road for a few hours cheering and singing as each and every last responder left the area. I kinda feel like they all did.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/av_yall070U" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MbKyEi5y2Ew" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[aboutime]

I wonder if anyone complaining about all of this considered how...possibly, just possibly. The remaining, free bomber; known to be armed with more than just a gun...might also have considered taking someone...in their home...hostage. In order to stay out of the search by the police???

If you lived in Watertown last week, and the cops skipped your house during their search. What would you say if the Bomber had been holding a weapon to your head, telling you to stay quiet, and not allow the police to come in and search????

There are so many possible actions that COULD HAVE taken place. Why not allow the police to finish their jobs, instead of giving people idea's on how to SUE the police department for Intruding on your Constitutional rights???

[jimnyc]

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/VLxbUp6SxHc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Robert A Whit]

I would have been THRILLED to be apart of them hunting down this scumbag. After they gave the all clear, I would have shaken as many hands as possible for their efforts. I would have no second thoughts about them doing a quick search for my safety, their safety and the perhaps apprehension of a terrorist. I wouldn't dare stop them from performing their jobs, a job in which they risk their lives for those very same residents. I don't feel sorry for the residents, and so many from that neighborhood stood along the road for a few hours cheering and singing as each and every last responder left the area. I kinda feel like they all did.

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/av_yall070U" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

<iframe src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/MbKyEi5y2Ew" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" width="560"></iframe>

Well, apparently you don't mind being treated as if you or your family are criminals.

I suspect those people will be paid a rather large check.

[jimnyc]

Well, apparently you don't mind being treated as if you or your family are criminals.

I suspect those people will be paid a rather large check.

They were treated as if THEY were in danger and had their residence quickly searched. They were not cuffed or treated like criminals. They were simply asked to come outside while they did a search.

You suspect wrong, unless of course you can show precedent of SWAT and similar having lost similar court cases for doing such in the midst of their jobs. Post a few cases on this specific activity, a SWAT member or similar entering a residence, without permission, in pursuit of a potential suspect, and I'll believe that for 3 seconds. My lexis access isn't showing anything similar - so it would appear your prognostication relies on uncharted territory.

[Robert A Whit]

I wonder if anyone complaining about all of this considered how...possibly, just possibly. The remaining, free bomber; known to be armed with more than just a gun...might also have considered taking someone...in their home...hostage. In order to stay out of the search by the police???

If you lived in Watertown last week, and the cops skipped your house during their search. What would you say if the Bomber had been holding a weapon to your head, telling you to stay quiet, and not allow the police to come in and search????

There are so many possible actions that COULD HAVE taken place. Why not allow the police to finish their jobs, instead of giving people idea's on how to SUE the police department for Intruding on your Constitutional rights???

My comments have to do with the way the cops treated the innocent residents. They were ordered out of their homes, looking like criminals.

First, my comments are not anti government. Nobody would be pretected from illegal search and siezure if we simply approved anything cops might do. I dunno, cops have done a lot of things and I can't ignore what they do to people daily.

Let's put it this way. Somebody put on line the video of what they did.

The constitution includes a right to not have your home searched unreasonably. When those came out looking like criminals, I kept thinking ... this is not Nazi Germany.

A wounded bomber was a lot easier to nab and a citizen turned him in to the cops.

We all were glad the bomber was captured in the boat. I have been very open that I would play a role in his punishment were I a citizen of that state.

I deplore a form of discussion that tries to imply one feels sorry for the bomber. I feel sorry for those residents.

[jimnyc]

Here's a good write-up:

SWAT teams descended on the Boston suburb of Watertown on Friday morning to conduct a door-to-door search for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect left alive after a convenience store robbery, car chase, and shootout Thursday night. Is it legal for the police to search your house without a warrant?

It can be. Under the Fourth Amendment, a judge issues a warrant if police can demonstrate that a search is “reasonable”—that there is “probable cause” to investigate a house, car, or backyard for evidence. But there are plenty of circumstances under which police can perform searches without invoking probable cause.

If you consent to a police search, officers do not need a warrant to enter your home. If you have a housemate, he or she can allow the police to rummage through common areas, such as the living room or the kitchen, but not private areas, such as your closet or bedroom.

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

Furthermore, police may enter a private residence to provide emergency assistance to an occupant—which may include apprehending a suspected terrorist who also happens to be inside. And if they plan to make an arrest in someone’s home, they can undertake a “protective sweep” of the dwelling first to confirm that no weapons or accomplices are stashed away where they can do damage later.

Should these justifications fail, the police could also just conduct a search that violates the Fourth Amendment, knowing that whatever evidence they turn up might not be admissible in court. If their first priority is securing public safety, such a bargain doesn’t seem too awful.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_doo r_search_by_police_for.html

[Robert A Whit]

They were treated as if THEY were in danger and had their residence quickly searched. They were not cuffed or treated like criminals. They were simply asked to come outside while they did a search.

You suspect wrong, unless of course you can show precedent of SWAT and similar having lost similar court cases for doing such in the midst of their jobs. Post a few cases on this specific activity, a SWAT member or similar entering a residence, without permission, in pursuit of a potential suspect, and I'll believe that for 3 seconds. My lexis access isn't showing anything similar - so it would appear your prognostication relies on uncharted territory.

They were ordered to go out with hands on their heads and march up to some cop and you say they were treated as if in danger?

Well, you must be right. Nobody else is of course.

[jimnyc]

They were ordered to go out with hands on their heads and march up to some cop and you say they were treated as if in danger?

Well, you must be right. Nobody else is of course.

Doors knocked on, residents asked to come out. Asked a few short questions. That is not treating them as a criminal. As for your little quip you had to get in, can you not go 2 posts without starting your crap?

[Robert A Whit]

Here's a good write-up:

SWAT teams descended on the Boston suburb of Watertown on Friday morning to conduct a door-to-door search for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect left alive after a convenience store robbery, car chase, and shootout Thursday night. Is it legal for the police to search your house without a warrant?

It can be. Under the Fourth Amendment, a judge issues a warrant if police can demonstrate that a search is “reasonable”—that there is “probable cause” to investigate a house, car, or backyard for evidence. But there are plenty of circumstances under which police can perform searches without invoking probable cause.

If you consent to a police search, officers do not need a warrant to enter your home. If you have a housemate, he or she can allow the police to rummage through common areas, such as the living room or the kitchen, but not private areas, such as your closet or bedroom.

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

Furthermore, police may enter a private residence to provide emergency assistance to an occupant—which may include apprehending a suspected terrorist who also happens to be inside. And if they plan to make an arrest in someone’s home, they can undertake a “protective sweep” of the dwelling first to confirm that no weapons or accomplices are stashed away where they can do damage later.

Should these justifications fail, the police could also just conduct a search that violates the Fourth Amendment, knowing that whatever evidence they turn up might not be admissible in court. If their first priority is securing public safety, such a bargain doesn’t seem too awful.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_doo r_search_by_police_for.html

So, did the bomber get arrested in those people's home?

Watch them get a check if somebody follows the story.

[jimnyc]

So, did the bomber get arrested in those people's home?

Watch them get a check if somebody follows the story.

Nope, he was flushed out somewhere in between and had little to no choice but to sneak into a boat, only to later be captured. The inability to arrest in a specific area is hardly indicative of illegal or unconstitutional activity. Hell, for all we know, he witnessed the searches going on a beat a path for another area.

[Robert A Whit]

Nope, he was flushed out somewhere in between and had little to no choice but to sneak into a boat, only to later be captured. The inability to arrest in a specific area is hardly indicative of illegal or unconstitutional activity. Hell, for all we know, he witnessed the searches going on a beat a path for another area.

The residents informed the cops that they were the only ones in the home. But they were forced out with hands on heads.

Watch them collect a check.

[jimnyc]

The residents informed the cops that they were the only ones in the home. But they were forced out with hands on heads.

Watch them collect a check.

Well, that's cool. I look forward to seeing it in court then. Did you find any of the others with precedent to post for me as requested? Or not interested in backing up your theory?

[Kathianne]

Nope, he was flushed out somewhere in between and had little to no choice but to sneak into a boat, only to later be captured. The inability to arrest in a specific area is hardly indicative of illegal or unconstitutional activity. Hell, for all we know, he witnessed the searches going on a beat a path for another area.

Even with the extreme measures that Boston PD and feds put on keeping folks off the street, trying to find this man. It wasn't until the curfew was lifted and a man desperate for a 'smoke' went out and noticed the tarp flapping:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/watertown-man-finds-bomber-holed-boat-article-1.1322387


Watertown man Dave Henneberry steps outside for cigarette, finds bomb suspect Dzhokhar Tsarnaev hiding in his boat Shocked boat owner went outside after Gov. Deval Patrick lifted curfew, noticed the tarp on his boat was loose and got a shock when he spied subject of city-wide manhunt holded up in his boatBy Ginger Adams Otis (http://www.nydailynews.com/authors?author=Ginger%20Adams%20Otis) / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS Friday, April 19, 2013, 8:48 PM
...

Henneberry was quietly smoking when he noticed the tarp that covered his 22-foot pleasure cruiser — a white Seahawk with blue trim and a fiberglass hull — was askew and walked over to investigate, said his stepson Robert Duffy (http://www.nydailynews.com/topics/Robert+Duffy).


“He went over and saw the tarp was dislodged and then he saw that one of the straps was hanging loose. He picked it up and saw it had been cut. He found it incredibly odd,” said Duffy.


Henneberry got a small ladder, climbed up to reach the boat deck and flipped back his tarp, said Duffy.
“He lifted it up and saw a pool of blood. And then he saw what he thought was a body,” said Duffy.
He jumped off the ladder and ran inside, dialing 911 as he went.


...






boat <script> function commentCount(){ function printResponse(response) { if ( response.commentCount > 0) jQuery(".goto-comments").html("Comments ("+response.commentCount+")"); } var params = {categoryID: "NYDN",streamID:jQuery(".goto-comments").attr("name"),threadLimit:100000,callback:printResponse}; gigya.comments.getComments(params); } jQuery(document).ready(function(){ commentCount(); });*</script>

[Robert A Whit]

Well, that's cool. I look forward to seeing it in court then. Did you find any of the others with precedent to post for me as requested? Or not interested in backing up your theory?

Nope. Tell me what I have to gain by digging deeper? You call it a theory that when cops do what these did that people are awarded money?

Earlier today i believe on my local news this was mentioned. But is it really that important?

Today on the news, 2 women that got shot by the cops in their car were awarded 4.2 million dollars though totally innocent. One was only hit by flying glass. The other took a bullet in the leg.

I am not saying these innocent residents can come close to a check like that. Had the cops not evicted them, the cops would have been in the clear in the case in Watertown.

I am not even saying they definitely will get a check. It's my hunch.

[Kathianne]

Nope. Tell me what I have to gain by digging deeper? You call it a theory that when cops do what these did that people are awarded money?

Earlier today i believe on my local news this was mentioned. But is it really that important?

Today on the news, 2 women that got shot by the cops in their car were awarded 4.2 million dollars though totally innocent. One was only hit by flying glass. The other took a bullet in the leg.

I am not saying these innocent residents can come close to a check like that. Had the cops not evicted them, the cops would have been in the clear in the case in Watertown.

I am not even saying they definitely will get a check. It's my hunch.

Keep in mind when you attempt to send others on goose chases of your posts. It's not worth the time, everyone that reads knows of what we speak.

[Robert A Whit]

Chicago cop whose home was raided is awarded $565,000 in damages


August 10, 2012|By Annie Sweeney, Chicago Tribune reported
When Chicago police broke into his Austin home with guns drawn and a search warrant, Markee Cooper Sr., a cop himself, and his family could only look on as drawers and closets were searched for crack cocaine based on an alleged informant's tip.
On Friday, a federal jury awarded Cooper and his family $565,000 in damages after finding one officer at fault for a falsified warrant and two others responsible for the illegal 2007 search.

[Robert A Whit]

Keep in mind when you attempt to send others on goose chases of your posts. It's not worth the time, everyone that reads knows of what we speak.

I have no idea what that is supposed to be all about.

[Kathianne]

I have no idea what that is supposed to be all about.

an attempt to send me to your post from yesterday. Not happening. Nor the requests from yesterday's post.

Robert, Jim is undoubtedly the most laid back forum owner, in case you've missed it, you're getting him bat crazy. That has to do with how others feel about interacting with YOU! You don't care, not about others issues, nor Jim's feelings. It's noted.

[Robert A Whit]

an attempt to send me to your post from yesterday. Not happening. Nor the requests from yesterday's post.

Robert, Jim is undoubtedly the most laid back forum owner, in case you've missed it, you're getting him bat crazy. That has to do with how others feel about interacting with YOU! You don't care, not about others issues, nor Jim's feelings. It's noted.

I am super laid back. I can't say more about your complaints. Except I have no idea what you are up to. Others? I have had poor luck with maybe 4 people. Funny how you described my feelings precisely in that last sentence. Not about me, but several others.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The residents informed the cops that they were the only ones in the home. But they were forced out with hands on heads.

Watch them collect a check.

picture this, dumb ass...

YOUR house is the one the cops are banging on the door of... the bombing suspect is inside, with a gun to your head, telling you to tell the cops your family are the only ones in the house... the cops take you at your word, and leave... the bombing suspect then kills everyone in the house but you, and leaves when the coast is clear.

Do you sue? Or do you side with the police, for protecting your right against an unreasonable search?

[Marcus Aurelius]

an attempt to send me to your post from yesterday. Not happening. Nor the requests from yesterday's post.

Robert, Jim is undoubtedly the most laid back forum owner, in case you've missed it, you're getting him bat crazy. That has to do with how others feel about interacting with YOU! You don't care, not about others issues, nor Jim's feelings. It's noted.

look up narcissistic personality disorder. it will explain a lot.

[Marcus Aurelius]

...The constitution includes a right to not have your home searched unreasonably.

if you do not consider a house to house search in the area a bombing suspect was seen, reasonable, then you really are bat crap crazy.

[logroller]

Even if it were a mandatory gun ownership town, my defense of the first responders would remain the same. The people's ability to defend themselves with their own weapons, aka guns, or restrictions, is an entirely different issue anyway. I'm far from certain that anyone with a pistol would respond appropriately to someone that perhaps has an IED.
I never said it was the same issue, I said it was related to the safety and security of the persons in their home which, if you examine the founding principles of the fourth amendment, you'll note the same principle has been interpreted by the supreme court re: 2nd Amendment.



The entire operation as a whole is what put him in that backyard, wounded, hiding in a boat. It's too easy to look at it in retrospect and call the search a failure based on where he was ultimately located. For all we know, had they not performed searches, he could still be sitting in someone's basement where they weren't allowed to search, or still holding someone hostage. The intensity of the operation, size and quickness is what got them shot so quickly and cornered.


Hold up. Fiction can be fun, but I find the reference section to be a better source from which to base my opinions. There's a chain of events that transpired involving citizens that directly led to events evolving as they did. First off there was an insane amount of finger pointing at shoulder straps on backpacks for several days, an arrest, or not, person of interest blah blah blather and then a security officer gets assassinated sitting in his patrol car and not until a citizen is carjacked and informed by his captors that they were the bombers and, antecedent to his escape from captivity, only then was there a positive identification. Based on his ID, police would locate and engage in a gun battle on a public street leaving one suspect mortally wounded and the other critically wounded (later found in a boat, again, by a citizen, not police).
I'm not saying the police don't deserve any credit, they do. For they actively seek out these blemishes of mankind; but let's not overwrite the story to omit the essential turn of events that involved an alert citizenry.

If this guy was holding a family of 9 hostage, and SWAT came across this house, and took him down and saved their lives, everyone would be saying what a great job they did in subduing the subject and they are heroes.
And maybe he would have rigged them all with explosives on a deadman switch. Or just executed them all. Either is equally probable once the assailant has them regardless of whether searches are conducted.

I wonder if anyone complaining about all of this considered how...possibly, just possibly. The remaining, free bomber; known to be armed with more than just a gun...might also have considered taking someone...in their home...hostage. In order to stay out of the search by the police???


If you lived in Watertown last week, and the cops skipped your house during their search. What would you say if the Bomber had been holding a weapon to your head, telling you to stay quiet, and not allow the police to come in and search????


There are so many possible actions that COULD HAVE taken place. Why not allow the police to finish their jobs, instead of giving people idea's on how to SUE the police department for Intruding on your Constitutional rights???
Again with the ifs. Anything is possible; but probabilities vary. What do you think the probable amount of time a man who just recently detonated a bomb in a public place, engaged in a gun battle with police and ran over his accomplice brother is going to hold hostages for? an hour, two, four? Conservatively, I'd say theres a 50% survival rate per hour: 25% after two, 12% after three and so on. Then consider the scope of the search; 20 blocks@ 25 homes per block. Considering 10-15 minutes per search with ten teams doing searches= 400-600 homes per hour=> roughly one hour to search all the homes-- resulting in a 50/50 chance of survival. Now maybe you consider the probability of coin flip to be reasonably safe, but i don't. The odds I hit my target at 10-15 feet is better than that, that my wife hits it in the event I fall is likely less-- but the odds the assailant succeeds in killing my family is greatly reduced, even under austere conditions. So when the government comes as says "we're here to help; leave the security of your home." I'll decline. But you go ahead a flip for it-- it's your right.
I know it wasn't directed at me, but I'm not advocating lawsuits, I'm advocating government respect the rights of free men to allow for the personal responsibility for one's own safety and security to flourish. That when government is the primary source of our safety and security, We become complacent and are, inevitably, less safe and secure.

They were treated as if THEY were in danger and had their residence quickly searched. They were not cuffed or treated like criminals. They were simply asked to come outside while they did a search.
It was a dangerous situation-- I understand this. But what leads you to believe that a citizen should b any less secure in their own home than whilst outside it? Tell me how many terrorists have killed people while they were at home? Comparatively, how many people have been killed by police in their own home?
I recognize that heightened emotions most certainly exist in an urban entry, and I don't seek to imply that police are malevolent, but the fact remains that the resident is substantially more familiar with the activities in his/her home than any other and has an advantage in how to best defend it...if they've the scruples.



You suspect wrong, unless of course you can show precedent of SWAT and similar having lost similar court cases for doing such in the midst of their jobs. Post a few cases on this specific activity, a SWAT member or similar entering a residence, without permission, in pursuit of a potential suspect, and I'll believe that for 3 seconds. My lexis access isn't showing anything similar - so it would appear your prognostication relies on uncharted territory.
See Jose Guerena.

Doors knocked on, residents asked to come out. Asked a few short questions. That is not treating them as a criminal. As for your little quip you had to get in, can you not go 2 posts without starting your crap?
it really depends on the circumstances. Putting myself in the Boston situation, I wouldn't answer the door. I'd put my kids in the cast iron bathtub upstairs, my oldest with a pistol, my wife on top of them with a shotgun and myself with an automatic rifle monitoring the sole doorway. If police make that far they'd best identify themselves and toss a shield through the door. Now I understand that this complicates police searches, as they must then ascertain friend and foe, but what I also understand is that my readiness eliminates the threat as well, if not better than does the police search. What I'm trying to convey is what is embodied in the 2nd amendment's prefatory clause, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That while some exigent circumstances may override fourth amendment protections, that has little to do with my other essential liberties...that is, unless they've already been usurped along with the free state principles and doctrines our nation was founded upon.

[taft2012]

These posters are not nutters. They're pretenders, they're liars, they're liberal Trojan horses sneaking in to conservative circles.

As I pointed out several times in this thread, they are not enamored with the original intent of the Framers of the Constitution. They are all moist in the drawers about the rulings of liberal activist courts that began in the 20th century to protect the rights of criminals. You don't have to believe me, it's history.

And one more thing to consider... during searches like this, fugitives have been known to pop open a basement window and slip into homes unbeknownst to homeowners. So you can get a scene with a Pothead Conservative pontificating to the police about his rights at the front door, all while a dangerous fugitive is in the basement hiding behind his furnace. That's why they call it "dope."

[taft2012]

Any unrelated criminal evidence that would arise would certainly be inadmissable.

Not necessarily.

In cases where the police are inside a dwelling legitimately, and something is in "plain view", it will be admissible.

You and I don't understand these tantrums they're throwing, largely because we don't have huge marijuana plants growing in our homes.

[jimnyc]

Chicago cop whose home was raided is awarded $565,000 in damages


August 10, 2012|By Annie Sweeney, Chicago Tribune reported
When Chicago police broke into his Austin home with guns drawn and a search warrant, Markee Cooper Sr., a cop himself, and his family could only look on as drawers and closets were searched for crack cocaine based on an alleged informant's tip.
On Friday, a federal jury awarded Cooper and his family $565,000 in damages after finding one officer at fault for a falsified warrant and two others responsible for the illegal 2007 search.

Comparing a falsified warrant search to this? :lol:

[jimnyc]

See Jose Guerena.

A cursory search for a terrorist and raid are 2 totally different things. Again, there is no precedent for officers performing cursory searches in the midst of a manhunt for a known terrorist. I'm also pretty confident that in the past few weeks that no one was shot in their home, so I think this comparison is WAY off.

[taft2012]

My comments have to do with the way the cops treated the innocent residents. They were ordered out of their homes, looking like criminals.

You're an idiot.


First, my comments are not anti government. Nobody would be pretected from illegal search and siezure if we simply approved anything cops might do. I dunno, cops have done a lot of things and I can't ignore what they do to people daily.



Just as an FYI. There was no such thing as an illegal search and seizure until 1914, when you liberals started rewriting the Constitution to fit your own particular whims.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Even with the extreme measures that Boston PD and feds put on keeping folks off the street, trying to find this man. It wasn't until the curfew was lifted and a man desperate for a 'smoke' went out and noticed the tarp flapping:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/watertown-man-finds-bomber-holed-boat-article-1.1322387

The muslim jihadists won this one. They were successful in doing the deed and then wildly successful in shutting down a city of over 1 million people for well over a day. All at the small cost of two pressure cookers, two back packs and explosives plus nails, ball bearings and junk parts!

All that from two young punks!!! Allah is indeed great when our government by way of its insane actions helps the jihadists score so damn big!!

Am I the only one that sees this truth??

Our government will overreact after the fact but simply refuse to do profiling before the fact. Which one stands the better chance of preventing an attack!!???

Profile the damn muslims!!!!!!!!!!!
They are the damn jihadists you stupid liberal dumbasses!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

[taft2012]

The muslim jihadists won this one. They were successful in doing the deed and then wildly successful in shutting down a city of over 1 million people for well over a day. All at the small cost of two pressure cookers, two back packs and explosives plus nails, ball bearings and junk parts!

All that from two young punks!!! Allah is indeed great when our government by way of its insane actions helps the jihadists score so damn big!!

Am I the only one that sees this truth??

Our government will overreact after the fact but simply refuse to do profiling before the fact. Which one stands the better chance of preventing an attack!!???

Profile the damn muslims!!!!!!!!!!!
They are the damn jihadists you stupid liberal dumbasses!!!!!!!!!--Tyr

Of course a bit profiling would go a long way.

But I think the thing that really shakes up the terrorists is the way the people of Boston came together and cooperated with this effort. That is something that is really frightening to go up against.

The Red Sox suck, the Celtics suck, the Bruins suck, and the Patriots *REALLY* suck.

But there's a real message that was sent here; Don't Eff with Boston.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Of course a bit profiling would go a long way.

But I think the thing that really shakes up the terrorists is the way the people of Boston came together and cooperated with this effort. That is something that is really frightening to go up against.

The Red Sox suck, the Celtics suck, the Bruins suck, and the Patriots *REALLY* suck.

But there's a real message that was sent here; Don't Eff with Boston.

I agree , the citizens performed wonderfully. The government not so much. The government enlarged the success of the bombers a hundred fold when it shut down the entire city for well over a day!
Just that foolish act alone gave massive moral support to the jihad murdering scum worldwide . Very likely insuring future attacks...or was that the intent(?)
Profiling Muslims must become a standard policy IMHO!! -Tyr

[jimnyc]

I agree , the citizens performed wonderfully. The government not so much. The government enlarged the success of the bombers a hundred fold when it shut down the entire city for well over a day!
Just that foolish act alone gave massive moral support to the jihad murdering scum worldwide . Very likely insuring future attacks...or was that the intent(?)
Profiling Muslims must become a standard policy IMHO!! -Tyr

I disagree. Had they let things go as is, and these guys dropped another bomb in a subway or bus and killed dozens, then they would have been condemned as well. I think the overall safety of the city should be paramount before anything. In theory, I see what you're saying though, don't give into them in the slightest, and in a way I agree. But in this instance it was a "live" event, not shutting down over a rumor.

[Marcus Aurelius]

If a terrorist or terrorists made a public threat to bomb the city, and it was locked down as a result, that equates to a terrorist 'win'.

If a city is locked down after a terrorist bombing, in order to find the suspects since they are reported in a given area, that does NOT equate to a terrorist 'win'.

IMHO.

[jimnyc]

I wanted to be fair and reply in kind here, length/time wise. My small reply earlier about Jose Guerena was when I just got up and had not had coffee yet!


I never said it was the same issue, I said it was related to the safety and security of the persons in their home which, if you examine the founding principles of the fourth amendment, you'll note the same principle has been interpreted by the supreme court re: 2nd Amendment.

I'll still stand by my initial stance, that these searches were reasonable in nature. I also wonder, and have no idea, if police/swat/fbi asked anyone to enter as they were there. The OK from anyone in the residence would wipe out any complaint as well. Just tossing that out there, but it looked to me that they were searching house to house anyway.


Hold up. Fiction can be fun, but I find the reference section to be a better source from which to base my opinions. There's a chain of events that transpired involving citizens that directly led to events evolving as they did. First off there was an insane amount of finger pointing at shoulder straps on backpacks for several days, an arrest, or not, person of interest blah blah blather and then a security officer gets assassinated sitting in his patrol car and not until a citizen is carjacked and informed by his captors that they were the bombers and, antecedent to his escape from captivity, only then was there a positive identification. Based on his ID, police would locate and engage in a gun battle on a public street leaving one suspect mortally wounded and the other critically wounded (later found in a boat, again, by a citizen, not police).
I'm not saying the police don't deserve any credit, they do. For they actively seek out these blemishes of mankind; but let's not overwrite the story to omit the essential turn of events that involved an alert citizenry.

It all started with the FBI on Wednesday at 5:10pm when they released the suspects photos. Most likely as a result of that, these 2 then geared up a few bombs and placed them in a car. They apparently killed the cop just to steal an extra gun, but that failed. Then they carjacked the Mercedes and then tried to rob the store. At this point, the massive manhunt begins and the city starts coming to a crawl and basically shutdown. That shutdown, IMO, and manhunt, and police shootout, is EXACTLY what kept him off the streets, and cowering in a boat. OF COURSE the citizen gets great respect for locating him and calling in the police to finish him off. But no way he ends up standing still if not for the shutdown and the way the police handled things. If Boston was rustling, then he would have been too.


And maybe he would have rigged them all with explosives on a deadman switch. Or just executed them all. Either is equally probable once the assailant has them regardless of whether searches are conducted.

This is pretty much what SWAT is trained for, to handle such dire situations. But possible, yes, you're right, all were possible.


Again with the ifs. Anything is possible; but probabilities vary. What do you think the probable amount of time a man who just recently detonated a bomb in a public place, engaged in a gun battle with police and ran over his accomplice brother is going to hold hostages for? an hour, two, four? Conservatively, I'd say theres a 50% survival rate per hour: 25% after two, 12% after three and so on. Then consider the scope of the search; 20 blocks@ 25 homes per block. Considering 10-15 minutes per search with ten teams doing searches= 400-600 homes per hour=> roughly one hour to search all the homes-- resulting in a 50/50 chance of survival. Now maybe you consider the probability of coin flip to be reasonably safe, but i don't. The odds I hit my target at 10-15 feet is better than that, that my wife hits it in the event I fall is likely less-- but the odds the assailant succeeds in killing my family is greatly reduced, even under austere conditions. So when the government comes as says "we're here to help; leave the security of your home." I'll decline. But you go ahead a flip for it-- it's your right.
I know it wasn't directed at me, but I'm not advocating lawsuits, I'm advocating government respect the rights of free men to allow for the personal responsibility for one's own safety and security to flourish. That when government is the primary source of our safety and security, We become complacent and are, inevitably, less safe and secure.

"again with ifs" - just wanted to note, I just got done replying to one of your "if" moments to an extent in the prior paragraph. :)

"we're here to help, leave the security of your home" is a bit taking things into a stretch, as I think even you'll agree that they didn't believe they were tossing them INTO harms way and away from safety. In fact, the opposite, I think they treated each locale as if he could possibly be in there.


It was a dangerous situation-- I understand this. But what leads you to believe that a citizen should b any less secure in their own home than whilst outside it? Tell me how many terrorists have killed people while they were at home? Comparatively, how many people have been killed by police in their own home?
I recognize that heightened emotions most certainly exist in an urban entry, and I don't seek to imply that police are malevolent, but the fact remains that the resident is substantially more familiar with the activities in his/her home than any other and has an advantage in how to best defend it...if they've the scruples.

I don't think they would be less secure outside or inside. And how many terrorists have killed people that were standing outside their homes as SWAT searched it? Comparatively, how many people have been killed by SWAT while they hunted a terrorist? These are all unknowns, as to an extent this is a first of a kind.


See Jose Guerena.

Already replied about him.


it really depends on the circumstances. Putting myself in the Boston situation, I wouldn't answer the door. I'd put my kids in the cast iron bathtub upstairs, my oldest with a pistol, my wife on top of them with a shotgun and myself with an automatic rifle monitoring the sole doorway. If police make that far they'd best identify themselves and toss a shield through the door. Now I understand that this complicates police searches, as they must then ascertain friend and foe, but what I also understand is that my readiness eliminates the threat as well, if not better than does the police search. What I'm trying to convey is what is embodied in the 2nd amendment's prefatory clause, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. That while some exigent circumstances may override fourth amendment protections, that has little to do with my other essential liberties...that is, unless they've already been usurped along with the free state principles and doctrines our nation was founded upon.

I likely would have done similar, and I doubt I would un-arm myself if I legally possessed a weapon, as I believe we all have a right to protect ourselves, especially in our own homes. I just think in addition to that, SWAT (all of them), have an overall responsibility to the community at large, not just an individual home, but that's where it starts. I don't think these guys took guns away and told people they couldn't defend themselves.

Ok, I gave my reply, but I'm going to be honest ahead of time and state that I will only participate minimally. I don't want a 300 page of disagreements, as all it really is, is opposing viewpoints being spun around and around in different directions, and I doubt most are going to change their minds. I think this all boils down to the 4th and whether these searches are considered unreasonable/reasonable. The best anyone can do is take it to court and let them decide. But from what I mostly saw up in that area, the people were too busy cheering all the first responders to be worried about suing them. But if someone takes it to court, I too will be very interested to see how courts interpret the situation.

[revelarts]

There was no need for generic profiling in this case, they had evidence they had bad intentions from the Russians BEFORE they did the deed. the FBI had talk to them BEFORE. multiple times, and they "investigated" and they let the boy go back in the wind. never tracking them as i suggest be done.
these guys were on the Radar of several intel agencies but they let them slide and did not communicate to each other the info they had. , either by stupidity or design these kids were allowed to do what they wanted.

to me here's the clincher for this could have been prevented.
If those of us here on this board KNEW that 2 guys in Boston were leaning toward violent "jihad". would you have them on the radar AT LEAST at every major City event? wouldn't we at least post a car by their home and pay a visit to any and all potential trouble makers in a city?

you see how much police power they can muster collectively AFTER it happens. FBI, ATF, Local Police, SWAT, heck National Guard maybe. Most SWAT teams sit on butts most of the day cleaning there weapons. Let them be part of local intel for international terrorism and track and double check behind the apparently lame FBI and other unkknow feds.

sending swat to EVERY innocent persons home after the fact is not a good plan when you have real evidence that someone specific is becoming radicalized IMO.

If the FBI and local LEOs listened to the tips they get from people and track and wire tap THOSE people most of these things would never happen

nearly every on of the terrorist of evet stripe has been Squeled on by friend family , mosque member, Imams , compound buddies and bystanders.
the wide net approach is stupid. profiling is still to wide. most of the billion of Muslims are NOT going to be terrorist. take the known serious threats, their the connections and their followers and cheer leaders. why is that so hard?

[jimnyc]

If a terrorist or terrorists made a public threat to bomb the city, and it was locked down as a result, that equates to a terrorist 'win'.

If a city is locked down after a terrorist bombing, in order to find the suspects since they are reported in a given area, that does NOT equate to a terrorist 'win'.

IMHO.

That was 'sort' of my thinking. If you are SURE that a suspect is on the loose, and sure he has access to bombs, and knowledge that he killed a cop - I don't see an issue with securing the city and asking the public to stay out of harms way while they perform their jobs during the manhunt. And I would agree, that I don't think we need to be shutting down cities without direct knowledge and proof of a threat. BUT, we have little alternative but to close a building or similar if a bomb threat or similar is called in.

[jimnyc]

There was no need to profile, they had evidence they had bad intentions from the Russians BEFORE they did the deed. the FBI had talk to them BEFORE. multiple times, and they "investigated" and they let the boy go back in the wind. never tracking them as i suggest be done.
these guys were on the Radar of several intel agencies but they let them slide and did not communicate to each other the info they had. , either by stupidity or design these kids were allowed to do what they wwanted.

to me here's the clinher for this could have been prevented.
If those of us here.
KNEW that 2 guy in Boston were leaning toward violent "jihad". would you have them on the radar AT LEAST at every major City event? just posting a car by their home and paying a visit to any and all potential trouble makers in a city?

you see how much police power they can muster collectively AFTER it happens. FBI, ATF, Local Police, SWAT, heck National Guard maybe. Most SWAT teams sit on butts most of the day cleaning there weapons. Let them be part of local intel for international terrorism and track and double check behind the apparently lame FBI and other unkknow feds.

sending swat to EVERY innocent persons home after the fact is not a good plan when you have real evidence that someone specific is becoming radicalized IMO.

Only the elder brother was on the radar, not the younger one. The "evidence" they had was nothing they could prosecute with, but they sure as hell may have wanted to keep a keen eye on him. And it should have been severely escalated after he went back to visit Russia and then THEY called to have the FBI take a look at him. They did that and found no danger. Not sure why they dropped it there though, IMO they should have kept going. This is something they will need to investigate and find out why it failed. Eerily similar to the past where agencies didn't properly share information.

They didn't do enough. They went too far. A lot of monday morning QB'n and wanting cake and the ability to eat it too.

[revelarts]

Only the elder brother was on the radar, not the younger one. The "evidence" they had was nothing they could prosecute with, but they sure as hell may have wanted to keep a keen eye on him. And it should have been severely escalated after he went back to visit Russia and then THEY called to have the FBI take a look at him. They did that and found no danger. Not sure why they dropped it there though, IMO they should have kept going. This is something they will need to investigate and find out why it failed. Eerily similar to the past where agencies didn't properly share information.

They didn't do enough. They went too far. A lot of monday morning QB'n and wanting cake and the ability to eat it too.

I've been saying since the invasion of afghanistan that this wide net stuff is stupid.
maybe not here so much but at my office they got tired of it long ago.
this is a small group not an massive army. the resources need to focus on the the hard core players and their connections . the kids went to Russia and met people - iguess- that are among serious players -PING- he's on the list. notifiy local state and all fed agencies. BEFORE any major events in the home city recheck the potentials there. before any major national event recheck the potenails all over for their positions and recent activity.

randomly checking grandmas pants and standing out side of ever mosque or millita compound fishing is stupid. Sweeping all the internet is a waste mostly.

most of the serious people will make connectings ..at least via internet .. with people that are already in the game. the underwear bomber did. these boys did. there's a pattern stick with the core players and work out to fringes. keep local, state, and all fed agencies in the loop.
that's whats suppose to happen at the fusion centers but they are stopping people like me who are taking pictures of city hall and hoover damn and putting OUR names on lists. And sending troops overseas Fighting taliban who are never coming here, Iraqis that are never coming here ,
the system is stupid, bloated ineffective..
I'm on a rant sorry carry on.

[jimnyc]

Just to reiterate, the KIDS did not go to Russia, only the elder brother did. He's the only one I am aware of that they had info on prior to the Marathon.

But what do you suggest they do to someone who simply went and talked with people? You have an issue with the government reading the kid his rights, but you're proposing they handled them outside of their rights prior (not that I care)? Would you agree that they can only do what they are 'legally' allowed to?

But like I already agreed on, the sharing is where this one was dropped. I agree it should have been disseminated to all agencies once they were notified by Russia.

[jimnyc]

It appears that both the FBI and CIA had watch lists:


U.S. authorities put alleged Boston bomber Tamerlan Tsarnaev on two separate watch lists in 2011 after Russian security agencies twice reached out to their American counterparts, raising new questions about missed opportunities to prevent the attack.

Russian officials contacted the Federal Bureau of Investigation in March 2011, then reached out to the Central Intelligence Agency in September of that year, citing concerns Mr. Tsarnaev might have been associating with extremists, according to U.S. officials.

The FBI has said it interviewed Mr. Tsarnaev and conducted a threat assessment, but found nothing "derogatory" that could prompt further investigation. A U.S. law-enforcement official said the case was closed after three months, after the FBI asked Russian counterparts for additional information, but received none.

U.S. officials said Wednesday that at the request of the CIA, Mr. Tsarnaev was added to a broad database called Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, which holds hundreds of thousands of names flagged by multiple U.S. security agencies.

Because Mr. Tsarnaev was a permanent resident of the U.S., the CIA alerted relevant domestic agencies, including the FBI, "specifying that Tamerlan may be of interest to them," a U.S. intelligence official said.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324743704578443322733489866.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

[revelarts]

Just to reiterate, the KIDS did not go to Russia, only the elder brother did. He's the only one I am aware of that they had info on prior to the Marathon.

But what do you suggest they do to someone who simply went and talked with people? You have an issue with the government reading the kid his rights, but you're proposing they handled them outside of their rights prior (not that I care)? Would you agree that they can only do what they are 'legally' allowed to?

But like I already agreed on, the sharing is where this one was dropped. I agree it should have been disseminated to all agencies once they were notified by Russia.

If you've Got Russian Intel telling you that he's met with people that are shady, and you got to his facebook pages etc and see that he's saying stuff that's a bit off the wall. you go to a judge and say we need a warrant to spy on this kid's phone, internet, his purchased etc.. Normal surveillance they don't need a warrant for. looking though trash, following , boom mics to here conversations in public. Talking to the local Imam etc..
No need to drone strike him in Russia before you know anythng more than he's talking to shady characters.

there no fool proof method to stop anything but laser focus regular constitutional investgation can go a long long way t cover most , it seems to me.

[jimnyc]

If you've Got Russian Intel telling you that he's met with people that are shady, and you got to his facebook pages etc and see that he's saying stuff that's a bit off the wall. you go to a judge and say we need a warrant to spy on this kid's phone, internet, his purchased etc.. Normal surveillance they don't need a warrant for. looking though trash, following , boom mics to here conversations in public. Talking to the local Imam etc..

I agree with all of this 100%. Especially after 9/11, once they were contacted by Russian authorities, they should have turned over every rock and kept him under a microscope. I understand that they had nothing to go on initially, but that's still no reason to just brush it off and not continue to monitor. There is no doubt that mistakes were made, or they overlooked many things, prior to this event.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I disagree. Had they let things go as is, and these guys dropped another bomb in a subway or bus and killed dozens, then they would have been condemned as well. I think the overall safety of the city should be paramount before anything. In theory, I see what you're saying though, don't give into them in the slightest, and in a way I agree. But in this instance it was a "live" event, not shutting down over a rumor.

Jim, to be fair, I believe that both our positions have merit IMHO..-Tyr

[jimnyc]

Jim, to be fair, I believe that both our positions have merit IMHO..-Tyr

Absolutely! I'm certainly not 'against' freedom, liberty and the right to be secure in ones home. I'm very big on our Constitution, and became more so when I married as my wife is HUGE on the COTUS and has the education to back it up. I don't want it to seem like I think the 4th amendment should be changed or ignored or any of that stuff. We differ on the reasonable/unreasonable, but I also understand that's a huge issue with some. I gave my reasons as to why I felt the searches were reasonable. That's all I can offer as I have no precedent on my side other than lack of precedent. I do think though that this scenario should be looked at and clarified if need be.

[Robert A Whit]

I agree with all of this 100%. Especially after 9/11, once they were contacted by Russian authorities, they should have turned over every rock and kept him under a microscope. I understand that they had nothing to go on initially, but that's still no reason to just brush it off and not continue to monitor. There is no doubt that mistakes were made, or they overlooked many things, prior to this event.

Okay but here is my angle.

The race officials should have had rules over things like this.

For instance, they could inform those in the area that should they see a package, a backpack or other such things, put down by anybody, immediately move out of the area and notify officials.

It is clear that others were not wearing backpacks or at least I did not see any others.

The city of SF has such rules and enforces them. They even show up if a grocery bag is set down.

[jimnyc]

Okay but here is my angle.

The race officials should have had rules over things like this.

For instance, they could inform those in the area that should they see a package, a backpack or other such things, put down by anybody, immediately move out of the area and notify officials.

It is clear that others were not wearing backpacks or at least I did not see any others.

The city of SF has such rules and enforces them. They even show up if a grocery bag is set down.

The guy who lost both legs was a direct witness. Unfortunately, according to him (and the FBI video), the bombs exploded seconds after being placed down. Not much you can do about those situations, which is why these single guys that go radical are scary as FU$&!

[logroller]

A cursory search for a terrorist and raid are 2 totally different things. Again, there is no precedent for officers performing cursory searches in the midst of a manhunt for a known terrorist. I'm also pretty confident that in the past few weeks that no one was shot in their home, so I think this comparison is WAY off.
a: not entirely different. Although, Guerena was killed during the execution of warranted raid, ie not exigent circumstance. Again you beg for precedent, but understand every precedent was, previous to occurring, unprecedented. But here's one, the whatisface guy who went all anti-cop in la. A manhunt on a similar scale that ended in a house and those cops didn't enter to search, they burned that bltch down. And he wasn't even all that terrorist, but so far no one shot in their home, not in the last few weeks by LE, but its not unprecedented. yet never by a terrorist.that's the primary reason I'd not leave it. I'm safer in there than outside. Except from the cops of course....look, I understand they're here to help and there's an abundance of good cops, by few that get a hankering for working the system to their advantage. I've seen a few myself, both personally and in the performance of civic service. If they want to search the house and ask and you agree, than fine, that's all good. If they ask to shove their hand up your ass and you agree I it, then that's on you...or rather, in you.
But if here's one thing I know for certain, cops can lie, they have license to lie to the general public. But if you or I lie to them, its criminal. Now why would I allow someone who I know can lie to me into my home based on their saying its for my protection?

[logroller]

I wanted to be fair and reply in kind here, length/time wise. My small reply earlier about Jose Guerena was when I just got up and had not had coffee yet!



I'll still stand by my initial stance, that these searches were reasonable in nature. I also wonder, and have no idea, if police/swat/fbi asked anyone to enter as they were there. The OK from anyone in the residence would wipe out any complaint as well. Just tossing that out there, but it looked to me that they were searching house to house anyway.



It all started with the FBI on Wednesday at 5:10pm when they released the suspects photos. Most likely as a result of that, these 2 then geared up a few bombs and placed them in a car. They apparently killed the cop just to steal an extra gun, but that failed. Then they carjacked the Mercedes and then tried to rob the store. At this point, the massive manhunt begins and the city starts coming to a crawl and basically shutdown. That shutdown, IMO, and manhunt, and police shootout, is EXACTLY what kept him off the streets, and cowering in a boat. OF COURSE the citizen gets great respect for locating him and calling in the police to finish him off. But no way he ends up standing still if not for the shutdown and the way the police handled things. If Boston was rustling, then he would have been too.



This is pretty much what SWAT is trained for, to handle such dire situations. But possible, yes, you're right, all were possible.



"again with ifs" - just wanted to note, I just got done replying to one of your "if" moments to an extent in the prior paragraph. :)

"we're here to help, leave the security of your home" is a bit taking things into a stretch, as I think even you'll agree that they didn't believe they were tossing them INTO harms way and away from safety. In fact, the opposite, I think they treated each locale as if he could possibly be in there.



I don't think they would be less secure outside or inside. And how many terrorists have killed people that were standing outside their homes as SWAT searched it? Comparatively, how many people have been killed by SWAT while they hunted a terrorist? These are all unknowns, as to an extent this is a first of a kind.



Already replied about him.



I likely would have done similar, and I doubt I would un-arm myself if I legally possessed a weapon, as I believe we all have a right to protect ourselves, especially in our own homes. I just think in addition to that, SWAT (all of them), have an overall responsibility to the community at large, not just an individual home, but that's where it starts. I don't think these guys took guns away and told people they couldn't defend themselves.

Ok, I gave my reply, but I'm going to be honest ahead of time and state that I will only participate minimally. I don't want a 300 page of disagreements, as all it really is, is opposing viewpoints being spun around and around in different directions, and I doubt most are going to change their minds. I think this all boils down to the 4th and whether these searches are considered unreasonable/reasonable. The best anyone can do is take it to court and let them decide. But from what I mostly saw up in that area, the people were too busy cheering all the first responders to be worried about suing them. But if someone takes it to court, I too will be very interested to see how courts interpret the situation.
I don't have a problem with the lockdown, that's reasonable IMO. A known felon on the loose, I'd lock my shit down for sure, loaded too. But that is a lockdown of the public space due to a public threat. Totally reasonable. But my home is not the public space, its private and I value that privacy. So much so I have taken precautions to protect it from threats. An alarm, smoke and fire detectors, fire extinguishers, coached my family on safe areas and meeting places and yes, the use of firearms and the places in the house where the advantage is most favorable. Why do I do this, because it is my right to be secure in my home and rights come with responsibilities. I don't slough these off on the police, forsake my rights for a false sense of security. Neither will I allow them to be talk from me.
Tbh I don't think I'd have a problem with a search around the premises. Just as they have a security perimeter, so do I and the design if my property is such that, absent security cameras, the exterior would be difficult to patrol with sentries. *If* They find an open or broken window, blood or the like; some evidence that my house my house was insecure or some other evidence that an increased probability of my house being breached -- I'd been more than understanding. But simple ordering me out of my house based on the fact a suspect was in the area...not reasonable. But hey, you choose to let LE search your house, far b it for me to say you shouldn't. But when I see you make a comment like "if I had a firearm", I have to ask why you wouldn't? I can tell you that I have had multiple break-ins and, even with an alarm, police took 20 minutes to respond.im not bitching about response time, I realize they're "not on my clock", but I'm certainly not going to place much stock in the police protecting me from violent intruders on any given Sunday.

[taft2012]

On 9/11, Manhattan below Canal Street was shut down for a much more extended period of time, affecting a population I would imagine was the size of Boston. Certainly a much more crucial business population.

Was that a failure? I don't think so. The people of Boston and the local and state government came together very well.

The irony of it to me is, how well would this have been handled in a red state? With pothead conservatives throwing up interference all along the way to law enforcement trying to track down a terrorist?

"Hell, I got me a gun. I woulda smoked the rag head myself!"

Yeah. Maybe you would have. Maybe we'd find your rotting body alone in your basement 6 months later.

[jimnyc]

But when I see you make a comment like "if I had a firearm", I have to ask why you wouldn't? I can tell you that I have had multiple break-ins and, even with an alarm, police took 20 minutes to respond.im not bitching about response time, I realize they're "not on my clock", but I'm certainly not going to place much stock in the police protecting me from violent intruders on any given Sunday.

I would fully expect to be secure in my own home. Of course states vary, but I would hope to have a firearm in Mass just as I have a few here in NY. I wouldn't give up a firearm under any circumstances, but I wouldn't mind the police assisting me in ensuring myself, my family and my neighborhood are safe.

[logroller]

On 9/11, Manhattan below Canal Street was shut down for a much more extended period of time, affecting a population I would imagine was the size of Boston. Certainly a much more crucial business population.

Was that a failure? I don't think so. The people of Boston and the local and state government came together very well.

The irony of it to me is, how well would this have been handled in a red state? With pothead conservatives throwing up interference all along the way to law enforcement trying to track down a terrorist?

"Hell, I got me a gun. I woulda smoked the rag head myself!"

Yeah. Maybe you would have. Maybe we'd find your rotting body alone in your basement 6 months later.
as opposed to having what, a badge and a hunch?
What is central to increasing the probability of success is training and a rehearsed plan. In the event of an emergency my family knows who to call to let them know their condition as well as contingencies. It certainly wouldn't take months to ascertain if there was a problem.

[aboutime]

On 9/11, Manhattan below Canal Street was shut down for a much more extended period of time, affecting a population I would imagine was the size of Boston. Certainly a much more crucial business population.

Was that a failure? I don't think so. The people of Boston and the local and state government came together very well.

The irony of it to me is, how well would this have been handled in a red state? With pothead conservatives throwing up interference all along the way to law enforcement trying to track down a terrorist?

"Hell, I got me a gun. I woulda smoked the rag head myself!"

Yeah. Maybe you would have. Maybe we'd find your rotting body alone in your basement 6 months later.


taft. All of this is useless here. What we have to understand, and recognize is.. Many here, and many more who are not here on this forum....SIMPLY HATE COPS.
You are the Butt of their Hatred because you are their chosen target who cannot run away. And they know. You can do nothing to them, despite their Constitutional Right to be full of hatred, and voice their opinion. Until they need a cop. And when one doesn't come quickly enough...they complain again.
They ARE NOT WORTH IT.