Police Searching Homes

i fully agree.....in my post i was inquiring why Blakenzy felt the need to put "" around terrorism.......

Click to expand...

I put it in quotes because it seems that every time legal and Constitutional guarantees are left by the wayside it's because of the label terrorism. Just say it's about terrorism (hell, it may very well be!), and suddenly the sky is falling and legal restraints no longer apply. The quotes indicate my contempt for, and that I no longer take the term seriously because it blows things out of proportion and is abused by those in power to justify doing things they should otherwise not be doing.

I don't think we should, as a society or nation, change the way we do things because of the very, very rare violent acts of a very, very few, regardless of their intent to cause fear and terror.


"Terrorism"

first, my family had a cabin in big Bear and a burglar entered by prying up the edge of the garage door, One guy pried and let a kid in to unlock the door. No external damage to the house--the police or anyone else would have no way of knowing the house had a burglar inside without entering. (thereafter, the garage door sported a lock on each side, installed lower than comfortable for normal use so that they could not be pried).

Anyway, in the boston situation I would have no problem cooperating with the police for a quick search for a terrorist who wasn`t there. I do, however, see the potential problem like the police in Islamomarxist New Orleans confiscating arms from law abiding citizens. Boston is no bastion or 2nd amendment rights.

I also marvel at the show of firepower to catch 2 lightly armed terrorists when in other cases the national guard responds to massive rioting and arson and just sits there and watches people loot. priorities, priorities...

I also marvel at the show of firepower to catch 2 lightly armed terrorists when in other cases the national guard responds to massive rioting and arson and just sits there and watches people loot. priorities, priorities...

Click to expand...

It's because the life blood of the current bloated security apparatus depends on funding destined to fight "terrorism". They HAVE to make a big fanfare of everything terror-related, lest their budget be questioned and eventually get cut.

BSA1 said:

Hmmm...

52 posts and none of the "go ahead and let 'em search without a warrant" crowd has comented on the fact it was a citizen not the Police that found suspect #2.

Click to expand...

And about 40 of those 52 were made before that information was public.

LEO can lie. You can say you only give them limited permission and they can say they agree. But they are not bound for it. A major reason never to give permission for any kind of search.

btw: there is no reasonable probable cause to search an entire neighborhood of houses for one individual.

I live west of Boston and watched the coverage. Those cops had battering rams at the ready as they were going up to people's houses. Not sure if consent would have mattered, I for one would not have let them in.

And we all know how useful battering rams are for consensual searches.

I can see it:
Homeowner: No, officer. There's no terrorist here. No reason to search. Just be on your way.
Officer: No problem sir. have a good night.

Yeah, right.

1) NO ONE has given any accounts that the Boston Police Dept. went kicking in doors and doing uninvited searches of properties.

Click to expand...

Here's one that certainly looks 'uninvited' from YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4nrkcUV_7Qk&feature=player_embedded

And here is another YT vid that was taped from an MSM news report that certainly seems to show 'uninvited' searches:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=FQ1-ZUN3Li0

Convincing stuff. Very sad.

Consensual searches for a terrorist don't involve police forcing people from a house at gun point, nor ordering them, with guns pointed at them, to keep their hands in the air.



So yes, I say again that we are watching the demise of American liberty, and believe that I do so without being overly dramatic. This is treason against the constitution, committed by tens of thousands of LEO, with no outcry from any "good cops" from the area.

So let's hear it, from the LEOs on this board, denounce it, let it be known that if this happened in your area you wouldn't stand for it, you would arrest the criminals committing home invasions. Do you stand for the constitution, or do you stand for "public safety"?

beautiful post chaos but you will not hear police here denouncing that behavior and if they do they are not telling the truth

Consensual searches for a terrorist don't involve police forcing people from a house at gun point, nor ordering them, with guns pointed at them, to keep their hands in the air.



So yes, I say again that we are watching the demise of American liberty, and believe that I do so without being overly dramatic. This is treason against the constitution, committed by tens of thousands of LEO, with no outcry from any "good cops" from the area.

So let's hear it, from the LEOs on this board, denounce it, let it be known that if this happened in your area you wouldn't stand for it, you would arrest the criminals committing home invasions. Do you stand for the constitution, or do you stand for "public safety"?

Click to expand...

for the love of god quit your rabble rousing.

its pretty easy to be an arm chair liberty commando when you dont have a terrorist running around your neighborhood, shooting cops and tossing bombs around.

despite what you want to believe, police werent just up and searching random homes and dragging people out by their hair at gun point......they were searching areas where they had good reason to believe the suspect could be hiding.

for goodness sake, theres a terrorist on the loose and you think they are interested in looking for your guns, illegal drugs, copies of your communist manifesto or whatever it is you think they care about more than finding a dangerous suspect.....get real.


dont get me wrong, im all for liberty.....i dont know about your qualifications, but im sure as hell not trained to deal with an bomb chucking terrorist on my own.....so let the people who can properly deal with it do their jobs.

mcameron you are not for liberty at all so why even say it. liberty for you is an hour of exercise out of your jail cell

I'm not worried about what they will find, I'm worried about my constitutional rights. And searching an area where they "have good reason to believe he may be" means violating the rights of thousands of people.


I don't know why I argue with you, if you care so little for your rights then don't complain when they take your guns for your own protection. If you are so willing to grant them your rights for a little security, don't complain when they do it in any area they choose.

M-Cameron: and that right there put you into the sheeple category.

Click to expand...

so im a "sheeple" because i know my limitations and would rather have trained personnel deal with a terrorist.....fine so be it.

i pray to god this never happens in your town, but if it does, itll be interesting to see how many of you arm chair elitist 'stick to your guns' and stick it to 'the man' when he comes looking for a suspect.

this has nothing to do with knowing ones limitations. this have everything to do with you not recognizing the needs of the citizens to defend their rights and liberties at all times from all directions. There were blatant violations of the soverign rights of those people when those searches were made of those houses. The 'justification' is irrelevant... the next time it won't be so "strong" a justifcation, which each subsequent event being less justified until such point as there's NO justification. And that's when they start arresting people for different-think and other such 1984'esque concepts. Once errosion starts around the foundations, if you don't immediately go in and shore up you'll soon find the foundations are crumbling and collapsing. We scream "NO!" and "ABUSE!" now, so as to stop the errosion before it becomes too great to deal with, without draconian measures which none wants.

this has nothing to do with knowing ones limitations. this have everything to do with you not recognizing the needs of the citizens to defend their rights and liberties at all times from all directions. There were blatant violations of the soverign rights of those people when those searches were made of those houses. The 'justification' is irrelevant... the next time it won't be so "strong" a justifcation, which each subsequent event being less justified until such point as there's NO justification. And that's when they start arresting people for different-think and other such 1984'esque concepts.

Click to expand...

4A: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.[1]

Click to expand...

please tell me what rights were violated?

because to me, searching for a suspected terrorist in an area where he is believed to be seems pretty damn reasonable to me.....

So, would it be reasonable to search every single house in a city for, say, a serial killer who killed 20 people over 20 years? What do you define as reasonable? If you think it is reasonable to be forced from your home at gunpoint, for your own safety, then welcome to the world of your own making. Don't be surprised when, in order to facilitate safety in your area after a natural disaster, they go through the process of "reasonable seizures" of your firearms.

you highlighted the wrong part...

4A: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.[1]

Click to expand...

"madman in the area" does not qualify as probable cause, has no oath or affirmation to it, and does not describe a particular place to be searched. I'll give that they had a particular person in mind in their searches. However without PROBABLE CAUSE that the person in question was INSIDE the homes being searched there is no right for them to force entry into those homes. A door ajar, a footprint on the door, a blood stain on the stoop I would grant as just cause, but lacking something concrete such as that there is no justification for the searches inside. Nevermind they didn't find him... a HOMEOWNER DID because he saw... wait for it... BLOOD EVIDENCE on his boat and a torn cover, both of which are physical evidence and would qualify as probable cause.

ChaoSS: you mean like New Orleans.

BTW, this is not armchair quarterbacking of a situation where cops were caught unprepared and had to make a snap decision. Since 9/11, and before, to some degree, these police agencies have been planning for these types of situations, running training exercises, simulations, so on and so forth. This has been planned for years, if something like this happened.


And yes, Sota, I do mean Katrina. I see no difference between these two situations. If these searches were reasonable, then certainly, the gun confiscations were reasonable seizures.

ChaoSS said:

I do mean Katrina. I see no difference between these two situations. If these searches were reasonable, then certainly, the gun confiscations were reasonable seizures.

Click to expand...

Confiscating guns from the cops in New Orleans would have been reasonable, since so many of them were murdering civilians.

"for the love of god quit your rabble rousing."

No kidding. He must think the fire department and the game warden has to have a warrant to enter private property too.