The really bothersome this morning that no one is talking about

[The2ndAmendment]

If they forced their way into a house without a warrant and without permission, they broke the law.

Would you, if you were on a Jury, convict the Law Enforcement officers of violating the Fourth Amendment (in this scenario)? No. So the point is moot.

The Jury is the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution, that's why the Jury itself is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Yes I would.

Here's the second problem then.

Someone would actually have to sue the government. Do you think anyone would sue the government under those circumstances?

Do you think the other Jurors would go along with your decision once you were in Court?

Hint: Even I would not support your decision. I even think they (the government) knew about the Boston Bombing attacks before it happened, and decided to LET IT happen, so they could pass more arbitrary liberty stripping bills, yet in this particular scenario, I would not convict the Government.

 

[Redfish]

If they forced their way into a house without a warrant and without permission, they broke the law.

Has anyone claimed that they did that?

The OP is saying that it happened.

I don't know if it did or didn't, that is why I said "IF it happened"...

IF they forced their way into a home without permission or warrant simply to search for the guy, they violated the Constitution.

I agree, are we going to condemn them because of an "if" ?

 

[Redfish]

Did you not see the SWAT teams going house by house this morning?

Yes, I saw them knocking on doors. I didn't see any doors being broken down, did you?

I saw families being given no choice and being forced out of their homes at 6 AM and I saw SWAT teams going into houses hard with guns drawn looking for business.

and that is wrong why? they were looking for a terrorist murderer. If they damaged your home or stole your pot you can sue them. BFD.

 

[bendog]

And the armored personnel carriers and all the bullets hsa bought!

 

[emilynghiem]

Why is no one talking the pseudo-martial law that was imposed on Watertown, MA this morning? We all watched on the local feeds as entire innocent families were kicked out of their homes at 6 AM east coast time so fucking swat teams could search their homes inch by inch. I definitely understand the concern by the government and that there's a dangerous terrorist on the loose. However, I'd have extreme trouble letting any government officials into my home... especially a goddamn swat team who's going to tear my place apart. Imagine them accidently stumbling on someone with a closet grow op or a basement hydroponic setup.

What say you USMB?

It's letter of the law vs spirit of the law.

technically I agree with the poster that without a warrant it's not fully legal
and also that who's going to prosecute that if it's minor compared to the bigger issues?

if they consented to let the feds bypass protocol, then by the spirit they
have the right to change a contract by consent, but not necessarily coersion

i think we ought to have some kind of agreement in advance,
like when juries are called for duty they get compensation

if people get profiled when there is a terrorist scare, or a criminal on the loose
and the wrong person is detained for questioning, we ought to have a set procedure
where the person gets ocmpensated for their time if they comply like jury duty

not wait or rely on lawsuits which can go either way

if we know this can happen, why not set up a procedure for it?
and people can agree to put up with inconvenience for small compensation nothing crazy

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

Why is no one talking the pseudo-martial law that was imposed on Watertown, MA this morning? We all watched on the local feeds as entire innocent families were kicked out of their homes at 6 AM east coast time so fucking swat teams could search their homes inch by inch. I definitely understand the concern by the government and that there's a dangerous terrorist on the loose. However, I'd have extreme trouble letting any government officials into my home... especially a goddamn swat team who's going to tear my place apart. Imagine them accidently stumbling on someone with a closet grow op or a basement hydroponic setup.

What say you USMB?

These filthy jack booted scum have been looking for opportunities like this since Junebug Bush started giving Bradleys and other military "surplus" (read, taxpayers bought new stuff from Bush's pals) to fatassed state and local swat teams.

The next point of interest is when this is over what the government does to silence the people it sent packing.

Right, the criminals should always have more firepower than the police. are you for real?

A better question is "Can you read?"

The point is displacing hundreds of people is crazy and possibly illegal.

The bottom line is this is another big win for Moslem malcontents even if Patric and his clowns capture this perp then gloat beneath a "mission accomplished" banner in the currently accepted tradition.

 

[Dugdale_Jukes]

If they forced their way into a house without a warrant and without permission, they broke the law.

Would you, if you were on a Jury, convict the Law Enforcement officers of violating the Fourth Amendment (in this scenario)? No. So the point is moot.

The Jury is the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution, that's why the Jury itself is protected by the Bill of Rights. It protects people from the government raping their rights, and it also protects the Government from being constrained and inoperable during times of REAL crisis.

Yes, I would convict. There are plenty more who would.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Yes, I saw them knocking on doors. I didn't see any doors being broken down, did you?

I saw families being given no choice and being forced out of their homes at 6 AM and I saw SWAT teams going into houses hard with guns drawn looking for business.

and that is wrong why? they were looking for a terrorist murderer. If they damaged your home or stole your pot you can sue them. BFD.

It's wrong because I shouldn't have to let government anything into my home irregardless of the circumstances. Unless there's a warrant for me or my property, I should able to tell the cops to kiss my dick. I'm just wondering what gives them the legal right to do this? I also imagine a lot of rights and libertarians would be losing their minds over this. I just thought it was odd that it wasn't being discussed.

 

[Redfish]

These filthy jack booted scum have been looking for opportunities like this since Junebug Bush started giving Bradleys and other military "surplus" (read, taxpayers bought new stuff from Bush's pals) to fatassed state and local swat teams.

The next point of interest is when this is over what the government does to silence the people it sent packing.

Right, the criminals should always have more firepower than the police. are you for real?

A better question is "Can you read?"

The point is displacing hundreds of people is crazy and possibly illegal.

The bottom line is this is another big win for Moslem malcontents even if Patric and his clowns gather under a "mission accomplished" banner in the currently accepted tradition.

so if someone is hiding the murderer in his basement and the police are refused entry---------------------------you fill in the rest.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

If they forced their way into a house without a warrant and without permission, they broke the law.

Would you, if you were on a Jury, convict the Law Enforcement officers of violating the Fourth Amendment (in this scenario)? No. So the point is moot.

The Jury is the ultimate Arbiter of the Constitution, that's why the Jury itself is protected by the Bill of Rights.

Yes I would.

Me, too.

 

[MikeK]

Why is no one talking the pseudo-martial law that was imposed on Watertown, MA this morning? We all watched on the local feeds as entire innocent families were kicked out of their homes at 6 AM east coast time so fucking swat teams could search their homes inch by inch. I definitely understand the concern by the government and that there's a dangerous terrorist on the loose. However, I'd have extreme trouble letting any government officials into my home... especially a goddamn swat team who's going to tear my place apart. Imagine them accidently stumbling on someone with a closet grow op or a basement hydroponic setup.

What say you USMB?

I agree. It's a bad precedent.

 

[Redfish]

I saw families being given no choice and being forced out of their homes at 6 AM and I saw SWAT teams going into houses hard with guns drawn looking for business.

and that is wrong why? they were looking for a terrorist murderer. If they damaged your home or stole your pot you can sue them. BFD.

It's wrong because I should have to let government anything into my home irregardless of the circumstances. Unless there's a warrant for me or my property, I should able to tell the cops to kiss my dick. I'm just wondering what gives them the legal right to do this? I also imagine a lot of rights and libertarians would be losing their minds over this. I just thought it was odd that it wasn't being discussed.

Geez, get real. What if you were part of the terrorist group and were hiding the bastard,, are the police supposed to get 1000 warrants before trying to find the murderer?

 

[Redfish]

Why is no one talking the pseudo-martial law that was imposed on Watertown, MA this morning? We all watched on the local feeds as entire innocent families were kicked out of their homes at 6 AM east coast time so fucking swat teams could search their homes inch by inch. I definitely understand the concern by the government and that there's a dangerous terrorist on the loose. However, I'd have extreme trouble letting any government officials into my home... especially a goddamn swat team who's going to tear my place apart. Imagine them accidently stumbling on someone with a closet grow op or a basement hydroponic setup.

What say you USMB?

I agree. It's a bad precedent.

Its an unusual situation. We had martial law here after Katrina. I didn't like it but I realized it was better than kill or be killed.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Right, the criminals should always have more firepower than the police. are you for real?

A better question is "Can you read?"

The point is displacing hundreds of people is crazy and possibly illegal.

The bottom line is this is another big win for Moslem malcontents even if Patric and his clowns gather under a "mission accomplished" banner in the currently accepted tradition.

so if someone is hiding the murderer in his basement and the police are refused entry---------------------------you fill in the rest.

You wait 'em out for 51 days, get bored, fill the house with flammable gas and then torch the place. Duh.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

and that is wrong why? they were looking for a terrorist murderer. If they damaged your home or stole your pot you can sue them. BFD.

It's wrong because I should have to let government anything into my home irregardless of the circumstances. Unless there's a warrant for me or my property, I should able to tell the cops to kiss my dick. I'm just wondering what gives them the legal right to do this? I also imagine a lot of rights and libertarians would be losing their minds over this. I just thought it was odd that it wasn't being discussed.

Geez, get real. What if you were part of the terrorist group and were hiding the bastard,, are the police supposed to get 1000 warrants before trying to find the murderer?

I'm just wondering if there's a legal precedent and if my rights suddenly go out the window because the government says so. I mean ultimately this is one guy and the government fucked up earlier trying to catch him.

 

[MikeK]

I understand what you are saying and I would agree that if the cops forced their way into a home without a warrant and without permission, there is a massive problem there.

One thing is for certain, if they did find a grow operation, they couldn't do anything except take the weed.

Could they take (seize) it under those circumstances? If so, why can they not effect arrest, too?

I don't know. But it's an interesting question. A tickler.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's the second problem then.

Someone would actually have to sue the government. Do you think anyone would sue the government under those circumstances?

Do you think the other Jurors would go along with your decision once you were in Court?

Hint: Even I would not support your decision. I even think they (the government) knew about the Boston Bombing attacks before it happened, and decided to LET IT happen, so they could pass more arbitrary liberty stripping bills, yet in this particular scenario, I would not convict the Government.

this is how govt gets abused, because of the bias toward obeying govt as having authority and order.
1. govt immunity has to be addressed (which can take more resources than cases are worth)
2. govt using public taxes for THEIR defense while citizens not having equal resources
(even with criminal defense, the court appointed resources are not equal)
3. burden of proof is not equal

when you resolve things one-on-one between individuals as through mediation and conflict resolution to reach a consensus-based decision, you have better
chance of including and respect each other's interests and viewpoints equally.

the minute you go head to head in adversarial combat, with these unequal resources and burden on one side, that is why there is legal abuse where people are not deterred from crime or corruption because there is no guarantee of justice and consequences

the only way i find to ensure equal justice is to prevent trespasses, grievances or abuses to begin with, to address them the minute there is a perceived conflict in views and don't wait for it to beocme a physical or financial act incurring debts or damages. all issues would hve to be redressed and resolved in advance BEFORE something goes wrong in order to be equally protected. after the fact, there is no guarantee of defending equal interests cuz the system is not equally accessible and is stacked against individuals. Too easily abused sorry.

 

[Redfish]

A better question is "Can you read?"

The point is displacing hundreds of people is crazy and possibly illegal.

The bottom line is this is another big win for Moslem malcontents even if Patric and his clowns gather under a "mission accomplished" banner in the currently accepted tradition.

so if someone is hiding the murderer in his basement and the police are refused entry---------------------------you fill in the rest.

You wait 'em out for 51 days, get bored, fill the house with flammable gas and then torch the place. Duh.

and if they are not allowed to enter any house in the city. Do they just torch the entire city and hope the guy is still there?

Get real, dude. If that happened in my neighborhood, I would want the police to come in and make sure the bastard wasn't hiding in my basement. and anyone who refused to let them in would become a suspect.

you far right guys are as idiotic as the far lefties.

 

[Redfish]

I understand what you are saying and I would agree that if the cops forced their way into a home without a warrant and without permission, there is a massive problem there.

One thing is for certain, if they did find a grow operation, they couldn't do anything except take the weed.

Could they take (seize) it under those circumstances? If so, why can they not effect arrest, too?

I don't know. But it's an interesting question. A tickler.

Is that what you guys are really worried about, the govt taking your fucking drugs?

 

[bendog]

I don't really see the problem. If the cops have a reason to believe a guy this dangerous may be in your basement or garage, with or without your knowledge, they can take a looksee w/o a warrant. It's a stretch of "hot pursuit" but this isn't exactly a usual case.

Moreover, from what I saw the cops were taking people from the houses until the cops could make sure the houses were safe for the people who were temporarily removed.

Now if the cops used that to bring a case about a home grow operation .... I think then it would present a problem. The usual hot pursuit case is Suspect A runs away from a drug bust and into a house he shares with Suspect B, who is then found smoking a joint or selling drugs to Suspect C.