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

[Unkotare]

What is it with liberals that think it's ok for a cop to come in someone home without a warrant?

It's not a matter of liberal or conservative. It's a matter of the law.

If it's the law the police had no authority to do what they did.

Yes, they did.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's not a matter of liberal or conservative. It's a matter of the law.

If it's the law the police had no authority to do what they did.

Yes, they did.

No they didn't they were not in hot pursuit

 

[Unkotare]

If it's the law the police had no authority to do what they did.

Yes, they did.

No they didn't they were not in hot pursuit

Yes, they were. It was a situation where waiting to obtain "a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence" and they had every reason to believe that "a suspect (was) about to escape."

No judge would find otherwise given the circumstances. Save your self-righteousness for a situation where it actually applies.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yes, they did.

no they didn't they were not in hot pursuit

yes, they were. It was a situation where waiting to obtain "a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence" and they had every reason to believe that "a suspect (was) about to escape."

no judge would find otherwise given the circumstances. Save your self-righteousness for a situation where it actually applies.

site the law for hot pursuit.

 

[Unkotare]

no they didn't they were not in hot pursuit

yes, they were. It was a situation where waiting to obtain "a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence" and they had every reason to believe that "a suspect (was) about to escape."

no judge would find otherwise given the circumstances. Save your self-righteousness for a situation where it actually applies.

site the law for hot pursuit.

I already provided a link.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

yes, they were. It was a situation where waiting to obtain "a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence" and they had every reason to believe that "a suspect (was) about to escape."

no judge would find otherwise given the circumstances. Save your self-righteousness for a situation where it actually applies.

site the law for hot pursuit.

I already provided a link.

I haven't seen it.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

All I will say is come in my home uninvited and see what it get's you. I don't give a shit who you are.

You see ............
It this kind of thinking & behavior that needs to be put in check, he will be the first to be taken down as an example.

 

[Unkotare]

site the law for hot pursuit.

I already provided a link.

I haven't seen it.

I'm confident you can find it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I already provided a link.

I haven't seen it.

I'm confident you can find it.

I'm not looking for it.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nobody seemed to answer my question a couple of days ago.

What were the police supposed to be doing? If they can't search for and apprehend the suspect in the manner in which they did, how were they supposed to catch him?

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Nobody seemed to answer my question a couple of days ago.

What were the police supposed to be doing? If they can't search for and apprehend the suspect in the manner in which they did, how were they supposed to catch him?

Wait for a citizen to call in a tip... which is exactly what happened.

 

[Desperado]

Nobody seemed to answer my question a couple of days ago.

What were the police supposed to be doing? If they can't search for and apprehend the suspect in the manner in which they did, how were they supposed to catch him?

This would be a good start:
What can we learn from what happened in Boston?
1. Whenever there is a crisis, there is always the risk that innocent people’s rights will be violated.
2. State and municipal governments need to be better prepared to handle crisis in an effective, Constitutional manner. The 4th Amendment still applies, even during a crisis situation.
3. The American people need to be proactive in petitioning their representatives to push for better legal guidelines during times of crisis. These guidelines should be in place to protect the rights of innocent people.
4. Without proper legal guidelines for law enforcement, we run the risk of having an entire country full of TSA checkpoints. This is unacceptable. We need to have this discussion on the front end of a crisis so that the government doesn’t make up the rules as they go during a crisis.
5. Police officers need to have better training about the Constitutional limitations of what actions they can take. Treating innocent people like criminals is unacceptable. Just because a person lives in the vicinity of a crime does not give law enforcement the authority to strip ignore that person’s rights.
6. Lockdowns are incredibly costly. As mentioned before, Boston likely flushed $1 billion down the toilet on Friday. This doesn’t just mean that the municipal government lost $1 billion. It means that the business owners and workers in Boston lost $1 billion. They lost this money because of a government action, not because of a terrorist action.
7. A heavily armed citizenry would have made Boston a safer place. Boston isn’t exactly a gun-friendly environment. The terrorists certainly had guns, but most of Boston’s citizens were helpless, locked in their own homes with little means of defense. Once again, the only people who were inhibited by Boston’s gun control laws were the innocent citizens.

Poor Richard's News - America, we need to talk about the Boston ?lockdown? and manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

 

[Freewill]

Nobody seemed to answer my question a couple of days ago.

What were the police supposed to be doing? If they can't search for and apprehend the suspect in the manner in which they did, how were they supposed to catch him?

The manner in which they did, DID NOT, lead to his capture. They sounded the all clear. One can only assume that the all clear was sounded because they thought he had escaped. I refuse to believe what one poster suggested that the all clear was sounded to flush out the man.

 

[Freewill]

Nobody seemed to answer my question a couple of days ago.

What were the police supposed to be doing? If they can't search for and apprehend the suspect in the manner in which they did, how were they supposed to catch him?

This would be a good start:
What can we learn from what happened in Boston?
1. Whenever there is a crisis, there is always the risk that innocent people’s rights will be violated.
2. State and municipal governments need to be better prepared to handle crisis in an effective, Constitutional manner. The 4th Amendment still applies, even during a crisis situation.
3. The American people need to be proactive in petitioning their representatives to push for better legal guidelines during times of crisis. These guidelines should be in place to protect the rights of innocent people.
4. Without proper legal guidelines for law enforcement, we run the risk of having an entire country full of TSA checkpoints. This is unacceptable. We need to have this discussion on the front end of a crisis so that the government doesn’t make up the rules as they go during a crisis.
5. Police officers need to have better training about the Constitutional limitations of what actions they can take. Treating innocent people like criminals is unacceptable. Just because a person lives in the vicinity of a crime does not give law enforcement the authority to strip ignore that person’s rights.
6. Lockdowns are incredibly costly. As mentioned before, Boston likely flushed $1 billion down the toilet on Friday. This doesn’t just mean that the municipal government lost $1 billion. It means that the business owners and workers in Boston lost $1 billion. They lost this money because of a government action, not because of a terrorist action.
7. A heavily armed citizenry would have made Boston a safer place. Boston isn’t exactly a gun-friendly environment. The terrorists certainly had guns, but most of Boston’s citizens were helpless, locked in their own homes with little means of defense. Once again, the only people who were inhibited by Boston’s gun control laws were the innocent citizens.

Poor Richard's News - America, we need to talk about the Boston ?lockdown? and manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev.

All that sounds reasonable. But the heavily armed citizens I am not really sure about. Just some thing to think about, more guns provide more resources for the bad guys. I don't think most people have the temperament to shoot someone or the ability.

I am glad they were able to take the man alive, even though they shot blindly through the boat, which makes me wonder. Any why I am curious as to why they shot the MIT policeman. Maybe he recognized them, don't know. I am also curious as to why they didn't have a plan of escape. They certainly could have escaped the city. My thinking is they thought they were not going to be found out. Much like how McVeigh was caught so quickly it does seem like the police got lucky. Which is not saying anything bad about the police we all need a little luck from time to time.

Also questioning the police tactics after the fact is not being disrespectful of the police. As you point out in the aftermath maybe we do need to set some guidelines concerning future actions.

 

[Freewill]

no they didn't they were not in hot pursuit

yes, they were. It was a situation where waiting to obtain "a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence" and they had every reason to believe that "a suspect (was) about to escape."

no judge would find otherwise given the circumstances. Save your self-righteousness for a situation where it actually applies.

site the law for hot pursuit.

Not taking sides but here is a discussion on hot pursuit:

Thus, the Court has recognized two specific conditions that justify warrantless searches under the rule of hot pursuit:

Hot Pursuit legal definition of Hot Pursuit. Hot Pursuit synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.

My opinion is that it would be hard for you to win an argument in MA that they the police were not acting in fashion to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.

 

[Mad Scientist]

"Hot Pursuit" allows a Police Officer to go into a house or business when that Officer SEES THE SUSPECT HE'S CHASING ENTER THAT HOUSE OR BUSINESS.

It doesn't mean that the Pigs can cordon off an entire area and go house to house like their in f*ckin' Iraq.

Search Warrant: Officer MAY enter your home or business.
Arrest Warrant: Officer MAY NOT enter your home or business.

 

[OKTexas]

"Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape."


Can the Police Search Your House Without a Warrant? | LegalZoom

When the police hadn't see the subject in more than 7 hours hot pursuit would not apply.

Cite the clause in state or federal law that specifies that.

"Hot pursuit is one such exigent circumstance. It usually applies when the police are pursuing a suspected felon into private premises or have probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed on private premises. The Supreme Court stated that "'hot pursuit' means some sort of a chase, but it need not be an extended hue and cry 'in and about the public streets'" (United States v. Santana, 427 U.S. 38, 96 S. Ct. 2406, 49 L. Ed. 2d 300 [1976]). Hot pursuit also applies when the lives of police officers or others are in danger. Thus, the Court has recognized two specific conditions that justify warrantless searches under the rule of hot pursuit:

the need to circumvent the destruction of evidence, and the need to prevent the loss of life or serious injury.

The Supreme Court enunciated the rule of hot pursuit in 1967, in Warden v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 87 S. Ct. 1642, 18 L. Ed. 2d 782. It had used the term before, but in Warden, it explicitly condoned a certain form of this warrantless search. In this case, police officers pursuing a suspected armed robber were told that he had entered a dwelling moments before their arrival. They entered the dwelling, searched it and seized evidence, and then apprehended the suspect in bed. The man alleged in court that the warrantless search of the premises had violated his Fourth Amendment rights. When the case reached the Supreme Court, it disagreed, justifying the search under exigent circumstances." Hot Pursuit legal definition of Hot Pursuit. Hot Pursuit synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.

My bold
Exceptions to the 4th Amendment are governed by the court, the question is did the house to house searches qualify under the exception? The answer is no, because the police did not have specific information that the subject had entered into any particular house. Just possibly being in the area did not meet the requirements for the exception.

 

[hortysir]

"Exigent Circumstances. This exception refers to emergency situations where the process of getting a valid search warrant could compromise public safety or could lead to a loss of evidence. This encompasses instances of "hot pursuit" in which a suspect is about to escape."


Can the Police Search Your House Without a Warrant? | LegalZoom

A recent California Supreme Court decision ruled that police may enter a DUI suspect's home without a warrant on the basis of the theory that important evidence, namely the suspect's blood alcohol level, may be lost otherwise. So what should you do if the police show up at your house "just wanting to look around?" It's not in your best interest to deny them access because there may be extenuating circumstances that you don't know about; you certainly don't want to risk physical injury or being charged with interfering with a police investigation when you didn't have anything to hide in the first place.
However, do make it clear that you are not consenting to the search. Ask the officers for identification and an explanation as to why they are there and what they're looking for. Also, write down details of the search as soon as possible, in case you need them later.




Just pasting the part you left out of your link

 

[paulitician]

Arguing over this is meaningless. Our Government was well aware of these guys. It's beginning to look more & more like a botched Fast & Furious-type operation. Our Government likely funded and fascilitated this attack. But don't expect the Government/Media Complex to ever tell you that. Truth is Treason in this empire of lies.

 

[Montrovant]

Arguing over this is meaningless. Our Government was well aware of these guys. It's beginning to look more & more like a botched Fast & Furious-type operation. Our Government likely funded and fascilitated this attack. But don't expect the Government/Media Complex to ever tell you that. Truth is Treason in this empire of lies.

You've come to the conclusion that this was a government-run event? Shocking!