The really bothersome this morning that no one is talking about

[Truthmatters]

did the OP note the cheering crowds of residents when the police got their man?

 

[Redfish]

did the OP note the cheering crowds of residents when the police got their man?

Yes, I know you hated to see the people of Boston spontaneously singing the national anthem and showing real patriotism.

Why was't obama leading the singing from DC, rather than taking personal credit for getting the bad guy?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Special credit to the image processing crews & analysts, they must have burned through coffee & pizzas right through from the Marathon to the capture.

Those are the real but unsung heroes of the event. The gold medal goes to video technology, without which those two would still be laying bombs.

 

[MikeK]

It is a bit of a conundrum though. The perpetrator could be hiding anywhere and in fact be holding a family hostage.[...]

Presuming the familar movie situation in which the fugitive is holding a gun to the head of a hostage, your job is to send the police away -- not invite them in and trigger a killing field.

Aside from that, imagine you are a former Recon Marine and a well-armed retired cop with years of experience in gang control and you have a huge pet rottweiler. Do you need anyone to examine your home to find out if a terrorist is hiding there? I don't think so.

At the opposite end of that hypothetical extreme is the 80 year-old widow who lives alone, is hard of hearing, hasn't been in her attic or cellar in years, and is oblivious to the manhunt going on.

What position between those two extremes do you occupy?

 

[Foxfyre]

It is a bit of a conundrum though. The perpetrator could be hiding anywhere and in fact be holding a family hostage.[...]

Presuming the familar movie situation in which the fugitive is holding a gun to the head of a hostage, your job is to send the police away -- not invite them in and trigger a killing field.

Aside from that, imagine you are a former Recon Marine and a well-armed retired cop with years of experience in gang control and you have a huge pet rottweiler. Do you need anyone to examine your home to find out if a terrorist is hiding there? I don't think so.

At the opposite end of that hypothetical extreme is the 80 year-old widow who lives alone, is hard of hearing, hasn't been in her attic or cellar in years, and is oblivious to the manhunt going on.

What position between those two extremes do you occupy?

I hope I occupy the one of common sense. A community can either cooperate with the police and let them do their jobs in a highly stressful, extremely potentially dangerous and deadly situation, or they can stick their jaws out and fold their arms and stand on a Constitutional amendment as more important than their neighbor's safety. There is a huge difference between the situation in Watertown and in a neighborhood sweep looking for illegal contraband or some such. In the latter case, no the police don't get in without a warrant. But when my interest in catching a perpetrator such as the Boston bomber is equal to theirs, yeah, I'm gonna help them catch him.

 

[OriginalShroom]

It is a bit of a conundrum though. The perpetrator could be hiding anywhere and in fact be holding a family hostage.[...]

Presuming the familar movie situation in which the fugitive is holding a gun to the head of a hostage, your job is to send the police away -- not invite them in and trigger a killing field.

Aside from that, imagine you are a former Recon Marine and a well-armed retired cop with years of experience in gang control and you have a huge pet rottweiler. Do you need anyone to examine your home to find out if a terrorist is hiding there? I don't think so.

At the opposite end of that hypothetical extreme is the 80 year-old widow who lives alone, is hard of hearing, hasn't been in her attic or cellar in years, and is oblivious to the manhunt going on.

What position between those two extremes do you occupy?

I hope I occupy the one of common sense. A community can either cooperate with the police and let them do their jobs in a highly stressful, extremely potentially dangerous and deadly situation, or they can stick their jaws out and fold their arms and stand on a Constitutional amendment as more important than their neighbor's safety. There is a huge difference between the situation in Watertown and in a neighborhood sweep looking for illegal contraband or some such. In the latter case, no the police don't get in without a warrant. But when my interest in catching a perpetrator such as the Boston bomber is equal to theirs, yeah, I'm gonna help them catch him.

I have no problem with people allowing police to search their homes and property of their own free will.

I would do that myself given the circumstances.

HOWEVER... If I were to come home and find the police entered my home without permission, I would be angry beyond words. That would be a violation of my constitutional rights and I would seek redress for it far beyond any repairs required.

 

[FireFly]

Police Officers Search Private Homes in Boston For Bomber & they did not find him. Citizens found him in an area police had already searched. What were the police searching for? Had citizens been told to sweep their own property & check on their neighbors this could have been over in minutes.

[ame="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MezLoczjfY"]Police State in America[/ame]

 

[bucs90]

did the OP note the cheering crowds of residents when the police got their man?

Haha, exactly right. They are OUTRAGED, and the sight of seeing huge crowds CHEERING and THANKING cops makes the radical right wing sick to their stomachs. That type of thanks and applause is restricted for military use only!!!! NOT government use!!! (I know, they're the same, just being sarcastic)

 

[bucs90]

Police Officers Search Private Homes in Boston For Bomber & they did not find him. Citizens found him in an area police had already searched. What were the police searching for? Had citizens been told to sweep their own property & check on their neighbors this could have been over in minutes.

God dang you people are stupid. Criminals get away all the time....only to be spotted by a good citizen and then caught by cops.

Why?

There are 800,000 cops in the US vs 300,000,000 residents.

There is less than 1 cop for every 300 residents.

Obviously, there will be a lot of times when the 300 see something that the 1 missed.

 

[FireFly]

Police Officers Search Private Homes in Boston For Bomber & they did not find him. Citizens found him in an area police had already searched. What were the police searching for? Had citizens been told to sweep their own property & check on their neighbors this could have been over in minutes.

Police State in America

God dang you people are stupid. Criminals get away all the time....only to be spotted by a good citizen and then caught by cops.

Why?

There are 800,000 cops in the US vs 300,000,000 residents.

There is less than 1 cop for every 300 residents.

Obviously, there will be a lot of times when the 300 see something that the 1 missed.

Once the photos were made public citizens would have found these terrorist no matter what. This is why we have civil rights in this country & properly refuse the police state. You don't have to let the state violate the constitution to find terrorist. The same thing happened on the Chris Dorner Man Hunt. Citizens found & reported him in a previously searched house, except that time the police shot a few innocent people. This time they arrested a few innocent people. We have to vote out these police state thugs before we have to live in constant terror from the police state. Do you want to be gunned down or arrested just because there happened to be a man hunt going on?

 

[Politico]

grow up. what they did was to protect innocent people. Martial law is something quite different.

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?

No.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

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?

No.

I've heard both things said in the media and the internet. I'll say this if the cops asked the homeowners' permission before sweeping their house, there's absolutely no problem here. And honestly in the same position, I probably would allow the cops to sweep my house if they asked. However, if they started barging into peoples' houses without permission, that is completely wrong and I'm prepared to get enraged about that. We need more information to come out on this before making a decision.

 

[Politico]

Well I am glad you would have allowed them to. But the people I know who lived here said no you don't need to come in. I think I would know if there was a terrorist wandering aroung around my house.

 

[Freewill]

Well I am glad you would have allowed them to. But the people I know who lived here said no you don't need to come in. I think I would know if there was a terrorist wandering aroung around my house.

Assuming the video in the OP was in Boston which I don't know if we have established that yet. Assuming that the police did a search similar which even if not in Boston that is what they did somewhere. In another provided video clearly you can hear an officer say get away from the windows and answer your door, or at least that is what I heard.

So what are the options here? The police want to ensure people and themselves are safe. So they go to the door and knock on the door. Someone answers and they question them. Now they are looking for a person whom may have a bomb strapped to their body or at least has a gun. If they barge into the home as seen in the video it seems to me they are taking a big chance on getting a civilian killed.

If the police did searches like this in Boston what did they do when no one what home to answer the door? If I were hiding I would try and find an empty house.

So I am now thinking that the video from the OP is not of Boston. What they are doing in the video doesn't seem like what is logical to do. So I apologize to all if the video is not of Boston and I implied it was without knowing.

 

[MikeK]

Sit down and shut up, prole.

You trying to let the turrists win?

The one that casually walked out of the big bad perimeter while the good guys were dicking around with kicking peoples' doors open at 6 am?

One of the most compelling provocations for the American Revolution was the routine practice of British Regulars conducting house-to-house searches of Colonial homes, looking for prohibited weapons and evidence of illegal commerce and tax evasion.

There is something so grossly offensive about this practice that it should be restricted to only the most extremely critical circumstances. Does the search for this single individual qualify as such?

Anyone who thinks so should visit this website to learn some eye-opening facts: Botched Paramilitary Police Raids | Cato Institute (Give the site a few seconds to load.)

 

[Foxfyre]

I guess the bottom line is whether the police and the ordinary citizen is a case of "US" and "THEM". With police officers among our friends, neighbors, and families, I personally don't view the police as "THEM' vs "US." I see us all as citizens, with the police choosing an occupation that puts them at higher risk at times, but with us all having the same interest in apprehending and removing bad guys who would hurt us from our society.

So I am much more likely to see the situation in Watertown as a cooperative effort and I feel justified in that view based on the Watertown people's seemingly universal approval of the police effort.

 

[g5000]

grow up. what they did was to protect innocent people. Martial law is something quite different.

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?

Yes.

Boston bomber search: Moment SWAT teams ordered innocent neighbors out of their houses at GUNPOINT | Mail Online

 

[bodecea]

It's only unjust Martial Law (violation of the Third Amendment) if the people (via their local legislatures) pass a resolution declaring for the Soldiers and Police to leave, which would deny Consent (as stated in the Third Amendment) to the establishment of a police state.

I have thought about it though.

The better question is whether or not the Fourth Amendment has been violated with forced entry by the law enforcement. However, I don't think a jury would ever convict law enforcement officials for violating the Fourth Amendment in this scenario (The Jury is the best judge of the Constitution), so I'll have to say no.

Also...anything found during these unwarranted entries would not be admissible in a court of law.

 

[g5000]

Has anyone claimed that they did that?

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?

If you go to the topic on here about the police scanner channel you could listen to during the search, you will find a post where I said they had kicked in someone's door. The police then said they could not leave the house unattended since the door was "off the pins".

 

[g5000]

This was an extremely bad precedent. If the police asked someone if they could search their house, and that person refused, and then the police forced their way in, they should be prosecuted for violating the 4th amendment.