Welcome to Inkbunny...
Allowed ratings
To view member-only content, create an account. ( Hide )
Yiffox

asking for your eyes, BOSTON LOCKDOWN - In DA US

by
I totally believe the present government in the United States is preparing to abolish civil rights.

the 1st amendment rights have been eroded for awhile
2nd amendment rights is a current target ( ie the right to own firearms - which is undeniably to protect oneself from the federal government...militias before were state organizations which could not be federalized and protected the individual from the federal government)  we see continual attempts to curtail right to arms, ie registration, limitations, etc.
4th amendment - right against unreasonable searches and false imprisonment

its the last I am writing about.

We see from both government and the media that the Boston lockdown was a success.  I abhor this.  I have seen a few videos of this, which I suspected, of police tanks going down the streets, of police going door to door, ordering lawabiding citizens out of their own homes at gunpoint, with hands over heads, while they illegally searched their homes in violation of the 4th amendment without warrant.  Can you imagine the police coming to your door with guns drawn telling you to get out while they search your home?  The media, the president, and others proclaim this as a great triumph.  News is it didnt even work, one alert citizen found the *1* guy they were looking for and alerted police.  If he had obeyed the authorities and stayed indoors behind locks, he never would have done this.  so total failure of the police state.

so what I'm asking you is have you seen any videos of boston people being forced from their homes, to date I have seen 2.  or better yet, were you IN boston and can say something how the police treated you?
Viewed: 129 times
Added: 5 years, 6 months ago
 
Beo
Beo
5 years, 6 months ago
I totally agree with you. It' going cray down there. thankfully I'm canadian
Shippo
5 years, 6 months ago
I totally agree with ya.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
yeah, i barely heard a section of martial law last month because people were protesting police brutality...why isnt this stuff on the news?? which makes me even more suspicious...did anyone even hear that NYC had martial law enacted?
whitepawrolls
5 years, 6 months ago
I keep seeing things posted on the net about Obama going to tear up the current constitution and rewrite it, but with anything on the net no telling how true that is.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
see the FDAA 2012, it basically says they can illegally detain american citizens indefinitely now without trial and redefines terrorist as just someone opposing the government, aka protestors could easily fit that
KazaOokami
5 years, 6 months ago
i dont know the truth of what happened during the search but there is one bit of info id like to clarify, the lockdown was lifted which is why the guy that found the suspect went to his back yard and frond the blood trail
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
Not sure if that is true, since the lockdown began on morning of the 19th and guy was found that evening?
KazaOokami
5 years, 6 months ago
yeah there was a press release there they said they were lowering the lockdown, not long after that the guy was found
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
i did see they allowed the dunkin donuts to stay open....srsly, no lie  XD  cops gotta have their donuts XD
KazaOokami
5 years, 6 months ago
yes donuts, very important
Winterfeline
5 years, 6 months ago
I checked the Finnish newspapers and the news websites. None of that stuff made its way here. Interesting enough, censorship of that level is not something I'd expect to see. The Boston incident is still mentioned but martial law is not. Just that 'measures are being taken to hunt down those responsible' to translate it loosely.

Forcing people out at gunpoint, illegal searches?

Yeah, I think that its "time to water the tree of liberty with the blood of tyrants and patriots" as I think was said in some form by the Founding Fathers? (Or at least that's the impression I've been left with)
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
same here, video of the police doing this was scarce, I went looking for it, (and still am, I can only find one video taken by some guy from his window) but news all over the place and no one shoots video?  They did describe it, which is why I started looking to see exactly what was going on.  links to that video is below
Stumpycoon
5 years, 6 months ago
We'll see.  If you're right then the slippery slope started under Bush II with the patriot act.  One of us will be saying "I told you so" and for the sake of America I hope it'll be me saying "see, your fears were unfounded".  But maybe you're right?  Let's see.
GilPix
5 years, 6 months ago
You can also put up there the invasion of our online privacy with all of this business with CISPA, this is the third time they try to pass a law through and this time it really is getting close. Not Good.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
well I heard this time they are excluding penalties for the big companies like Google, so its just the people against the law now.
GilPix
5 years, 6 months ago
Hell they sure wanted that with the amount that has been paid by the lobbyists, they have put over 84 Million dollar to try and get CISPA to pass. Probably much more getting slipped in unmarked envelopes in the bathroom stalls.

Then you gotta go back and ask, How the Hell is this helping the country!?!
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
eh the corporations own the government, not us
GilPix
5 years, 6 months ago
Possible solutions?
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
well for this case, write you congressmen and tell them you will not vote for them if they vote for bills you dont approve for, and would like a response to how he will vote for that and upcoming bills so you can share it on your social media XD
Jimmy
5 years, 6 months ago
Any links to those videos of forced searches of people's homes?  I would like to verify this.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
its very hard to find as the news services didnt want to show them apparently, they TOLD you about it, but didnt show the video nationally of people forced from their homes while police squads entered homes at gunpoint

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=alZPOvh8XW8  <--that looks cobbled together from a local news station
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Gi9RH1QbXU  <--this is the one I found
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vC58A4EW6tg  <---there we see why there wasnt more news video of the warrantless searches as camera crews are told to stay a block away from searches
RoseFoxTaylor05
5 years, 6 months ago
They can only take away the people's rights when the people give them up.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
yeah but easier to do at gunpoint and when they got those tanks with sonic weapons on top, like they actually used on protestors in pittsburgh in 2009
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
While I agree that the idea of police door-to-door searches is a disturbing one, I'm pretty sure that these searches were not illegal. Warrants are not always needed to satisfy the Fourth Amendment; probable cause, voluntary searches and public safety exceptions are often used instead of warrants.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
one criminal on the loose does not justify probable cause or even public safety....there is no evidence the bomber was in any of those homes and entering people's homes at gunpoint is rather excessive and again it didnt even work.  This was a bald faced power grab.  Police CAN not enter your home by force, its against the constitution.  Probable cause is needed to get a warrant, not to force a search.
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
First, there was evidence that he was in the area (the police chase, fire-fight, etc.) so this wasn't a sort of out-of-the-blue search of random homes but rather a sweep of potential hiding places...

Second, the reason why the police had their guns drawn is because they knew the suspect was armed and heavily dangerous. He might have been the first one to open the door, and so the police had to be ready for such an occurrence. I agree that to a civilian it can seem scary and excessive, but the police were just protecting themselves from a potential attack. He might have been held up in one of those houses with hostages at the time.... The police needed to be ready and prepared.

Lastly, homes, businesses, other dwellings and cars are searched everyday by police through probable cause without warrants. Probable cause is the equivalency of a warrant, not just a pre-requisite. For example, if I'm a cop and a guy shoots at me and then runs into a house, I  don't have to wait for a warrant to be issued before I can go in and search the house to find the guy.

The Fourth Amendment does in no way prohibit cops from searching homes through force. It just sets limits on the instances when they are allowed to do so (i.e., it protects against "unreasonable searches and seizures")...I don't think anyone or anything was damaged during these house searches, though if someone does feel that their constitutional rights were violated, they can bring a 42 U.S.C. sec. 1983 cause of action lawsuit against the police department, though I doubt they would win such a case absent property damage or intentional harm to the person....

It's true that they didn't find the bomber until after the home searches, but that fact doesn't bear any relevance on the legality of those searches. It's not an outcome-dependent system.

This article pretty much sums up what I said XD : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explai...
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
I have seen similar articles excusing the search as not violating the constitution, but it can easily be argued they are wrong.  Probable cause, as I said is cause for a search warrant, not a search.  SImple fact is there was no probable cause.  Simply because they suspect someone of being in an area does not mean they can search every house in the area.

Also the videos of the event clearly show the people were not given a choice as to the search.  It was illegal and a violation of their rights and they SHOULD sue to make sure the government does not do this again...I believe this is the first time the gov has EVER done this, and they need to be sent a message that its not ok.
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
Hang on, just to be clear: NOT every search requires a warrant or exact probable cause. There are OTHER exceptions for legal searches. Public safety/Exigent Circumstances (for example, if there's a threat that there's a bomb in the area) is one such example, and it was used in this case. These exceptions are usually governed by an objective "reasonableness" standard.

This is definitely NOT the first time the government/police have ever done searches through force. In this context, a "forced" search just means "non-voluntary." The police do it EVERYDAY with various suspects around the country, from large drug busts in homes to bomb threats in downtown areas. The only unique aspect of this situation is the amount of preparation by the police used in the search. Then again, the police don't usually deal with bomber/murderers on this scale very often.

This perhaps was the first time a heavily-armed, SWAT-type search was caught on camera in recent years, but the police always have the option to conduct forced searches if they believe that there's an imminent danger/threat to the public safety. Again the legality of such a search would depend on the objective reasonableness of that belief. Because the exigent circumstances exception is controlled by a reasonableness standard, the test is different depending on the exact circumstances of each individual case.

If this was a different scenario and say the suspect was only a shooter and not a bomber, then maybe these searches were "unreasonable". But this guy was a bomb suspect, who the police knew had access to various types of explosives (from chucking hand-made grenades out of a stolen car), and firearms, and they knew that he was in a certain vicinity. There was a high degree of threats to the public safety. Undoubtedly, any person in the area of that bomber was in danger. The higher the threat, the more likely that forced searches will be allowed under the law.

I am NOT a huge proponent for these types of searches. I am not saying that they are good, effective or even the "best" option. All I am saying is that the law, as it currently stands, allows for these searches. Now if you think that these kinds of searches should be illegal, then you need to get the support to your lawmakers in Congress or the states to make a law to say just that. But that's a completely different issue. My argument is purely legal, not ethical or political.  
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
The law is already made and defined by the courts.  Its called the constitution...there was no general threat to public safety that the searches could have alleviated, and there was not hot pursuit.  Those are the only one bomber somewhere.  The courts would clearly say it was illegal

Morever, the possible harm to the innocents was far greater from the police from the bomber.  There are pictures of a sniper in a tank taking arm at someone taking a picture from a window....how is that in anyway for the safety of the citizens?

the bottom line is..."those who surrender liberty for security, deserve neither"  and I did write my state and national representatives, asking what they are doing to prevent this from occurring again
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
Having a bomber in the neighborhood is a threat to public safety. If a search, even a forced one, can lead to the bomber, then that will surely “alleviate” the threat if not destroy it completely.

I am not sure the extent of the information that the police used to conduct these searches. But there was a hot pursuit which led to the area. The searches were conducted close in time and in proximity to the bomber’s suspected location. I am not sure how many homes were searched nor am I aware of anyone claiming to have been harmed by the searches. There are legal remedies if that was in fact the case, but outside of being temporarily removed from their homes, I don’t think any actual “injuries” took place to either the residents or their property.

You’re right in that there is a fine line between security and liberty, and this is one of those times. This was a very unique case though, as we usually don’t have city bombers escape into the suburbs... Perhaps this event will bring a surge of public policy decisions to increase limitations on forced searches...who knows... if it does, great, but if not, I think the status quo is acceptable as is...

Just for now though, I think that Boston’s finest were only trying to get the bomber and nothing else. I firmly believe that they had no interest in depriving the residents of their rights, finding evidence of other crimes in the homes or anything related to a sinister conspiracy. I just think they wanted to find the bomber and protect the people in the area from future injuries (and death). Until a court says otherwise, I think their actions were “by the book” and legal.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
it's fine if you believe they are legally.  I think any court in the nation would declare it not to be so.  The courts have taken a very hard line at invading people's homes.

hot pursuit means you see him go into a house, then you can search it...going into a neighborhood and losing him is no longer "hot"

you can't search every house, every time a suspect gets away....is a gunman less dangerous than a bomber?  the sandy hook guy killed like 20 some people, these bombers killed 4?  and there was no reason to

all the police had to do was say, check on your neighbors, call us if you find anything suspicious going on.  Worst case scenario he was holding hostages, police barging into homes with guns drawn would not be a good thing for that family if they did so, so no, it was just bad policing to do that and serves no logical purpose, other than to train civilians to submit to house searches.

As for police not having other intent....its like geez, the guy came into that neighborhood the night before and suddenly cops are prepared to search houses the next morning?  seems like someone had a plan ready to do so
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
Ahh... Forgot to hit "reply"... But see my new comment below:
MobiusNesbit
5 years, 6 months ago
British here, while the BBC has been providing details on the Boston situation (both before and after now) they haven't had a lot of visual stuff, usually the normal "reporter behind a desk" stuff they do. I've been checking stuff out on Reddit, though... I thought the guys doing the door to door searches were soldiers, not cops?
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
Soldiers are not allowed to be used as police on American soil by the Posse Comitatus act about 150 yrs ago.  

They generally wore police notifications, state and local police.  They do own tanks now thanks to our national security agency, which is all for protecting citizens, right?
MobiusNesbit
5 years, 5 months ago
Erk. I hope this doesn't become a regular thing for you guys..
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
I agree that the Supreme Court has taken a hard stance at searching people's homes, but again it comes down to whether the courts agree that the threat to public safety was "reasonable" under the circumstances. I would imagine that a bomber is more dangerous under the law generally, because explosive devices are indiscriminany weapons, and bombs, not guns, are listed as weapons of mass destruction.

Hindsight is 20/20, but for this area of law, it's a case by case basis when you are dealing with the exigent circumstances exception... If it was obvious that the threat was unreasonable, then the courts should have no problem ruling against the cops (if such a lawsuit is ever filed), but I wouldn't put money on it.

I also suspect that the majority of the Watertown residents, and especially the victims and their families of the bombings, wouldn't mind cooperating with police if it meant a quicker capture. That possibility of apprehension, again, was the only reason for the searches. Sure it may have been planned it advance, but the cops (in this case, Boston PD, local authorities and the FBI) all have protocols for these scenarios so they're always prepared. These weren't some random house searches but a strategical sweep in one targeted area of a neighborhood.

You're right in that the chase had gone "cold," but a hot pursuit is not a requirement for these kinda of searches. They can do them even from anonymous tips if the information of the threat is "reasonable."

In the end, I think the law values the capture of a known armed bomber (thus preventing future injuries and deaths of innocents) over the limited inconvenience of having the police search your home for a few minutes... Whether that value is right/wrong is for the elected lawmakers to decide, not the courts. So I guess we shall see in due time, but for now, my presumption, just like the law's is innocent until proven guilty (or rather legal until proven illegal) XD

I do like this discussion though ^_^ and I'm sorry for writing a lot in each comment XD
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
it is not an inconvenience to have your home search, for police to show up with guns, demand you evacuate your house at gunpoint with hands over heads and then have your home violated by the same people.

That is not an inconvenience, that is a traumatic event.  It a criminal had done the same thing, you would not have be saying this is just a bothersome thing.  It is a violation pure and simple...I am really surprised that you are even attempting to justify it.  Did you watch the video of people with hands on head?  What if someone refused the search?  would they be shot?  arrested?  thrown to the ground?  is it an inconvenience then also?  What if someone exercised their legal right to protect their property and opened fire on the police, legally the owner would be justified as he had not committed any crime.
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
It’s a traumatic event!? That’s a little much, isn’t it? Sure it probably would be scary at first, especially for children, but you have nothing to fear from the police if you’re not the criminal. The residents knew that the police weren’t there for them, and again the guns were only there to protect the officers from another potential fire-fight. I doubt that anyone was emotionally scarred by from these searches. Perhaps some were initially frightened and then later pissed off, but emotionally-scarred forever? Ordering people with their hands on their head is probably the most common protocol for cops to use when they conduct searches of homes with the possibility of an armed/dangerous suspect inside. They just wanted to make sure no one had a weapon.

If I had to put my hands on my head, walk outside my house and wait for a while, I would be annoyed, but again I would understand that the police were just doing their job. Perhaps more importantly, after the search was over, the residents went back to their business. No one, to my knowledge, was detained, arrested, injured or scarred... that’s probably because the people cooperated given that they had no reason to be afraid of the cops and, like the everyone else, they wanted to find the bomber too.

If it was a criminal with a crap load of weapons like that, then yeah, that would be traumatic because my life would be in danger. The criminal, unlike the cop, is not obligated to follow the law. The American people, for the most part, trust the cops (along with other civil servants like firefighters) with our property, and many times with our own lives. Those residents were never put in any harm by the police. They were in more potential harm from the sheer fact that there was an armed bomber in the vicinity.

Hell if I thought a bomber was nearby my house, and I had a family or loved ones with me, I would want as many cops in my area as possible to protect us and find the guy quickly before anything else happens.

If someone physically resisted, then the cops would take measures in proportion to their resistance, just like they usually do. Impeding an officer’s lawful discharge of his/her duties is a crime; namely, obstruction of justice. No, I don’t think anyone would be shot for simply resisting to cooperate; probably at most, they would get arrested, or possibly just temporarily detained and then let loose after the search of that particular house was complete.

Now if the resident opened fire at the cop, then yea, of course the cops would shoot at them in defense of their own lives! I can’t imagine any scenario where it would legal to shoot at a cop when they are lawfully discharging their duties. (Maybe if a cop went rouge on a rampage, but then at that point, he’s not being a cop anymore.)

You do have a legal right to protect your property, but that right doesn’t extend to preventing lawful searches from the police. The owner would not be justified in that case, and if they shot at police, and they were not killed, they could go down in court for attempted murder, assault with a deadly weapon, and probably a bunch of other crimes. Cop killers/shooters aren’t favored by most juries in criminal courts.

This isn’t the Revolutionary War and these cops aren’t the British “red coats” looking for minutemen to exterminate. We don’t live in a country with a lot vigilante justice (nor should we in my opinion). These were a mix of highly trained, tactical specialists of local, State and Federal agencies, who were working together to meet one goal: find the bomber before he hurts someone else. I don’t think the cops would have chosen a plan of conduct that was a “violation, pure and simple.” They abide by their own rules and protocols, but most of all, they are bound by the law (including of course the Constitution) just like everyone else; if anything they are held to a higher standard when they are acting with authority.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
it is legal to defend oneself and one's property, the cops being the one's illegally invading does not make you give up rights, you HAVE the right to defend yourself.  I don't think the various laws across the country saying you can defend your own home say, hey if its the police trying to get in illegal, then you cant do anything...I challenge you to find such a law?

again, a search without a warrant is not legal.  its against the constitution, the highest law of the land, and judges have continually said they can't do it except in an extremely small number of circumstances....to date, a criminal on the loose somewhere in the neighborhood has never been cited, so you are just wrong according to the law.  You saying its legal does not make it so.

and yes, searches by the police can be traumatic.  This was not oh were searching your houses, the videos show, get the hell out of your house now, were coming in with guns pointed at you....hands on your head, dont move....

I'm glad YOU think police are all nice and have your interests at heart....there's tons of videos showing otherwise.  Personally, I had a police officer stick his hands down my pant's pockets 6 yrs ago because I was riding a bike home at night from work in a 3 piece suit.  (you know totally looking like a criminal)  I will never forget THAT and think THAT was a violation.  Having a stranger's hands in my pants was traumatic and I loathe the police for it.  I have friends who were beat up by cops in an elevator, which they got away with, as the cops just said they were resisting arrest.  (ever notice police dept's always stick up for cops and they are never using excessive force?)

and pst...if they were obeying the law, then why did they break the 4th amendment?
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
Ugh... where to begin?.....let’s go paragraph by paragraph;

1. I don’t know why you are presuming that this so-called “invasion” (what most people would call a search) was illegal. I thought that was the whole point of this debate. So if you want to conclude that the search was illegal and then say “I win, so there!” then by all means have at it, but it adds no substance whatsoever to your argument. But, even assuming your conditional facts were correct, your argument still fails, and here’s why:

Defending one’s home, known colloquially as the “Castle Doctrine,” is different state-to-state. Here’s an answer to your little “challenge.” As this case happened in Boston, here’s the Massachusetts law on the matter:

“In the prosecution of a person who is an occupant of a dwelling charged with killing or injuring one who was unlawfully in said dwelling, it shall be a defense that the occupant was in his dwelling at the time of the offense and that he acted in the reasonable belief that the person unlawfully in said dwelling was about to inflict great bodily injury or death upon said occupant or upon another person lawfully in said dwelling, and that said occupant used reasonable means to defend himself or such other person lawfully in said dwelling...”

In layman’s terms, this means that the resident would have not only have to claim that he thought “OMG It’s the Cops! They’ve come to kill/greatly injure me!” but also that person’s belief must be reasonable! I’m positive that if such a case were to go to court, the jury would conclude, “Wow, this guy was nuts. He knew the police were in his area, he knew the police were looking for a bomber in his neighborhood, he knew the suspect was highly armed and dangerous and that cops were looking for him and he still opened fire on the police when they were executing a search!? That’s beyond unreasonable....it’s insane” ...

So you see, even if some psycho/paranoid conspiracy theorist did actually believe that the cops were going to do great bodily injury and/or kill him, that belief would not be a defense to his actions as his belief would not be reasonable. Aside from the actual bomber, no teams of police are going to bust in your house to kill or harm you, and you would be irrational to believe so. If you’d like to find a law that even hints otherwise, by all means have at it because I would love to see it.

2. We have already determined that searches without a warrant are acceptable if certain conditions are met (probable cause, exigent circumstances/public safety, etc.) You probably haven’t found a lot of “criminal on the loose” search cases because obviously NO ONE doubts the legality of such a search. To top it off (and even though I hate doing this kind of argument in debates), YOU saying that the search was ILLEGAL does not make it so. The law presumes that the police have acted legally and until a court says otherwise, you’ve got no evidence of illegality here; just a lawful search.
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
3. Maybe to some people they were traumatic. I haven’t come across any story of a report of a Watertown resident saying that they were traumatized by this. But again, under the law, the value of finding a known bomber supersedes a person’s sensitivity to a lawful search. And again, (I don’t like to repeat myself but since you insist on continually raising the same point,) the guns were only there to protect the cops from the suspect. They were pointing at the front door, in case someone blurted out with a gun/bomb/weapon. The police point guns at suspects/front doors/driver seats all the time; it’s a precaution measure, for their safety. What, you think the cops were like, “Come out and/or we’ll execute you?” What is this, the mafia!? These are police officers and special agents, not hit-men.

4. I am truly sorry that you had a traumatic experience one time with one cop. I am also sorry if your friends were unjustly assaulted and battered without due cause. But I think your perception of the police has become distorted by those experiences with a couple bad cops. It is completely illogical to use those few examples to make generalizations about the roughly 795,000 police officers in this country. The fact of the matter is, cops protect and serve the American citizenry 24/7 from crimes of all sorts, and many of them get injured or die in the process. Just because a handful of bad apples exist doesn’t make the entire population guilty.

And no, the police departments do not always stick up for the cops. They all have their own internal affairs (or something equivalent) division that constantly investigate complaints against police officers, not to mention the local and federal prosecutors that have put some cops behind bars exactly for excessive force. You’ve never heard of a cop getting fired (if not more) for using excessive force? Really!? I’m sorry but you obviously have no experience or knowledge of the inner workings of a police department. What about Rodney King, for example? Those cops were fired, prosecuted and convicted in a federal court. It was national news! Police departments aren’t on the streets beating people and getting away with it... Your tax dollars are paying for their salaries so if you really are that opposed/fearful/angry at the police, I suggest you try to change the law through your legal options. That or move.

Lastly, in response to your last sentence, again you’re presuming they broke the 4th amendment, which honestly, good luck proving that in court buddy. As of right now, they were obeying the law.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
3. if you think several people pointing loaded rifles at your face and the faces of your family and you think its not traumatic, there is something wrong with you.  really.  It is not an every day occurrence.  In this case, I dont see much difference between armed thugs armed with guns and the police.  In fact, it may be an apt description.  They are thugs of the state.  This is EXACTLY why the contitution spend so much time LIMITING the power of such people, because they had just went to war to get rid of their thugs from England doing bad things to them.  So yes, police are thugs.  Whether they work for the mafia or the state, does it really matter?  The police have probably killed far more people than the mafia.

4.  Oh its more than just one experience.  Pretty much every run in with a cop has been a bad experience, unless I'm working behind a counter.  (Theyre all for businesses)  Let's see the cop who stuck his hands down my pants.  The cop I called because someone was threatening my life over a phone and had him calling me about 20 times on my caller ID, from his work.  Reported it, and the cop believed the threatening that I was harassing him, despite the evidence of 20 calls on my caller ID (he refused to look) because I was home when I called in a tshirt and the other guy was at work in a suit and tie, go police.  The time when I was threatened by the police to have my bike impounded because I asked for his name because he told me I couldnt bring my bike inside mcdonalds (like I always did -there was no place to tie it up) and so they lost a sale.  SO yeah kinda a long list.  Also number of crimes solved by police for me - 0, it's really not even worth calling them unless its a major crime.

and yes, often internal affairs sticks up for cops....how many news stories do we hear of cops doing awful things to people, and it always ends the same way, the police said the officers did nothing wrong...really?  tazing someone 5 times when theyre on the ground?  Personally I think the whole tazing thing period is criminal and could and has been deadly force.

and you do know that those officers only went to trial because they were videotaped.  How many such crimes by police don't go on videotape, just search youtube really for time after time of police doing crazy things.  SO back to Rodney....you do know they were aquitted of the charges of excessive force.  This caused a riot, so for political reasons the feds charged them not with excessive force (you cant try people twice) but civil right violations  - how they got that to stick, no idea, and again, 2 of the four officers were acquitted of charges.  SO yeah, 2 got away with it, and 2 almost got away with it.
alonelywolf
5 years, 6 months ago
Ok, first of all, I’m pretty sure the police didn’t search thousands or even hundreds of homes. Your extreme examples are of no value. The exigent circumstances exception gives probable cause and as long as it was objectively reasonable (as decided by a court) then it’s legal. There is no exact percentage ever when dealing with probable cause here; it’s a sliding scale.

Your analysis and example of the castle doctrine is at most comical if not completely worthless. A cop would never admit on the stand that he went in a house with no cause. I think the majority of people in their right mind would not think that the cops were going to do anything to them if they had nothing to fear (as they weren’t criminals). How many of the residents resisted in this case? How many opened fire or even fought the police? How many of the residents got arrested for not cooperating? How many of them filed complaints against them? To my knowledge, the answer to all those questions is ZERO.

Again you don’t need a hot pursuit for exigent circumstances to apply. I have no idea where in the law you are getting that “requirement,” but I assure you it is not a prerequisite. A known armed bomber in the area with dangerous weapons of mass destruction = obvious threat to public safety and immediate danger to the surrounding residents.
I no longer wish to be your little research assistant and find cases or laws to prove my already-obvious points. If you want to wait and see if any legal action arises from this situation, be my guest, but I’m tired of arguing pointlessly for the sake of arguing. I have tried using simple legal concepts, logic and common sense. I cannot provide anything more than the truth.

I pity the fact that you judge people you don’t know who protect everyone around you every day. I’m sure there will come a time in your life when you or someone you know will be in trouble and you’ll call 911 expecting the cops to do their job...and I hope they treat with the courtesy, respect and lawful dignity (that they almost always do regardless) despite your bashing of these men and women who serve the public. If you want to join a cop-hating group I’m sure there are a few on the internet just itching for new members (they’re also a lot in jail too as criminals don’t seem to like cops that much...who knew?)

I’m done my good sir, I’ve had my yearly dosage of conspiracy fear-mongering and I hope that the cops don’t turn you down the next time you need them. Best of luck to ya. Peace.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
a neighborhood, so hundreds were searched

exigent circumstances- It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.  none of these apply, so it does not apply.

we dont know if anyone got arrested or resisted as they aren't reporting on it, the reporters weren't allowed near and only have the cops word....they did not allow the press to report on their behavior, and actually threatened the lives of reporters according to one report, yay cops

castle doctrine...if the cop said he entered the house with probable cause, um what was it...well see there was a bomber somewhere, so we had to....do you see how ridiculous that sounds and how you are justifying throwing away the 4th amendment out of fear?

again those who sacrifice freedom for security, deserve neither

and yes, I am anticop....if they disappeared tomorrow, dont think there would be much change.    Why am I anticop?  every cop Ive had experiences with and every video Ive seen of them makes me that way..  cops in my experience are general asses.  There is a reason why lawyers tell you not to even talk to cops and never let them in your homes.  They will try to entrap you.  Doubt me?  what the first question they trained to ask when they pull you over in your car..."do you know why I pulled you over?"  this is so you can incriminate yourself, pure and simple...these people do not and never will have your best interests at heart.  Your protectors and friends don't try to get you to incriminate yourself or entrap you and the sooner you realize that, the better off you will be.  There is a reason why they call it a POLICE state afterall.  It's NOT a good thing.

sorry if you dont want to do research TO BACK UP WHAT YOUR SAYING, sheesh

so really good luck, i'm sure you'll be excusing the gov taking away your rights in the future.  Its grand you acccuse me of being a conspiracy theorist because I can see the obvious violations of freedom are government is increasing doing to see what they can get away with....so yeah, i'll just call you a police state sympathizer, which one of your neighbors will you report first huh?  hehe

5th amendment gone...they basically wiretap the phones, cell phones and the internet en masse and record the stuff for years
4th amendment gone, and you say hey great as long as they get a bomber, who needs rights, ba-sha
1st amendment - the press is basically controlled (saw a funny skit today from conan obrian how news agency after news agency were all repeating the same lines they were fed) and you dont have the right to assemble anymore...and speech is rapidly fading too
even our right to vote is a sham....it is interesting in how they ignored ron paul this last election, dropping his off charts, replacing his picture in lineups, putting him last place in elections he won, not even mentioning him in results where he got the 2nd most votes in states and straw polls....the "free" press universally dismissed him.  It got so bad jon stewart remarked about it.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
ok sir....found actual footage final...why is the national media not reporting this?  again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEfoCUHk1e8

how did residents describe their encounter by the police?  terrifying, frightening, "i'm holding my daughter with guns pointed at my head"

this is what you are justifying for their "safety"  people kept prisoner in their homes and those outside not allowed back.

yet they were being "rescued"  seriously?  justify all of that mr police state sympathizer.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
more video coming out:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V7SIQJ578d4

residents horrified in their own words.  so still claim this wasnt traumatic?

but you think police showing up at your door with guns pointed at your head is peaceful and nothing to be worried about...and I expect further video leaks of what actually happened to come out  in spite of press lockdown
cooncub
5 years, 5 months ago
I've never had problems with the police and support that they risk their lives daily to protect us as best as they can. Remember they are human and at times emotions can get the best of anyone. I don't agree what they did in Boston as they did go a bit far.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
first on the illegal issue...because a cop looking through your stuff is a search....10 men with rifles pointed at you and barging their way into your home to do a search is an invasion of one's home.  Unless you've had loaded weapons pointed at your face you really don't understand the gravity of what they did.  I am correct on this because cops can not randomly search homes for crimes.  period.  What is the reasonable doubt that their suspect was in any of those homes, let's say conservatively in a township, 500 homes?  so 0.2% chance is reasonable to you?  what if they expanded the search to the whole boston area, 250,000 homes or so, is .004% chance still reasonable?  when does it become unreasonable search to you?  i'd say 3 homes at most and that's pushing it.  so unless you can find the supreme court saying otherwise, that police can search hundreds of homes to find one suspect because they think he's in this neighborhood, then you are wrong.  You are hypothetical some limited measures pushed to extremes somehow justify searching hundreds of homes without warrants by force no less.

well let's examine the castle doctrine...if the police entered by armed force against your wishes with no warrant and no reasonable suspicious that their suspect was in your home, they are there unlawfully, so first criteria is met.  We call an officer to the stand, sir, did you enter brandishing potential deadly force?  ala guns drawn and pointed at the innocent citizens without cause?  yes.  to the jury, if anyone including the police breaks into your home with guns drawn, would anyone in their right mind reasonably not think they were about to inflict bodily harm or death?  If your answer is no, then why would anyone in their right mind comply with an order for them and their family to vacate their own homes and submit to a pointless and illegal search, case closed.

2. the supreme court says its illegal time after time.  Yes there are limited cases where police can enter a home without a warrant.  Probable cause, does not apply, exigent circumstances( does not apply, there was no hot pursuit into any particular home), and public safety (does not apply, there was no immediate danger to any of those homes)

you can not expand hot pursuit to a neighborhood and search every home in it legally--really this is so limited that police can not even cause the exigent circumstances (ie knock on your door, smell pot, hear you flushing the pot down the tiolet, and barge in --supreme said No to that for example)  You can not declare public safety and do anything you want.  Rights do not go out the window just because one 19 yr old bomber is on the loose.

so really find me a case where cops randomly searched homes legally for these reasons EVER BEFORE and it was upheld by the courts.  just one?  
virazvitalia
5 years, 6 months ago
Well this is my opinion from it from someone who was visiting boston at the time of the bombings. I can understand why they searched the homes. Cause at that moment there was a bomber on the loose possibly in the neighborhood. I don't know for sure if he was there or not but honestly I'm glad that they did search and with them having guns they weren't actually pointing them at people as soon as the people put their hands on their heads which they did ask us to do they lowered their guns. There were even some who didn't even have their guns raised or drawn.

I personally didn't feel like my rights were infringed upon and in this case there was someone on the loose who could potentially do alot of harm. So there was a pretty good reason for the searches. And of course their are bad cops just like their are bad lawyers and bad doctors all people we put our trust in. But it doesn't mean that all of them are bad. But then again that's just my opinion on the whole thing.
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
there are always criminals in neighborhoods.  ALWAYS.  This does not justify police coming to houses with guns drawn on innocent people for the .2% or less chance a bomber might be there (if he was in fact hiding in a house, which he was not)

so yes, their 4th amendment rights were violated.  they were far more at risk from the police than the bomber.  Id rather face one bomber somewhere in the neighborhood than the certainity that armed police are coming to my door....000002% chance vs 100% chance of danger.  Guns pointed at my head are no fun.  Had it happen in the past, not wanting it to happen again from the people supposed to be protecting us.  What if someone asserted their constitutional rights and said police cannot enter without a warrant?  did this occur?  we dont know...media was told to stay far clear from this.  I've only seen 3 videos from cell phones so far of them invading homes guns drawn.

you may think its worth it to sacrifice liberty for security, but so did the people in pre-Nazi Germany...question is where do you draw the line?  I draw it at the constitution.
virazvitalia
5 years, 6 months ago
like i said only can really discuss what I saw and what happened. And its not that i think its worth it to sacrifice liberty for security but in times of where my personal life may be at stake any percent of chance is to much to me in those cases then i can accomodate given any other situation then i would say no you may not enter my dwelling. And also as i said i didn't feel my rights were violated i don't know about the other people. And of course there are criminals in every neighborhood. But the cops don't burst into your house for every criminal. This was a person who set off a bomb something that luckily only killed 4 i believe still a shame that 4 died but it could be worse.

As for the people in Germany they were manipulated cause their country was in a downturn due to the war and diseases that ravaged the land. The jewish people were used as scapegoats because they were the group of people that the plague seemed to pass over because of bathing being in their religious documents. But where i draw the line is on a case by case basis if its a bomber then yes i want to police to search the area even if that means my house. Some common robber it may be up to how i feel if i let them in.

But i never did say they were justified i just said i understand why they did what they did. But yes guns were drawn but they were not pointed at people's heads. that much i can say from what i saw. Besides it obvious that the constitution is not the end all be all because we have had to make ammendments to it before. thats why we have the courts to tell you if something is not right or if it is right. But given the circumstances I would think that some would feel safer with the police there. cause lets say he was in the neighborhood and he set off another bomb under a car or something that was explosive he could have caused alot more damage and probably would have had a higher body count. That's something the police can't have.

Was it unconstitutional? Maybe. But were they doing it with malicious intent or were they doing it in what they thought was the best interest of the public. Like if someone set off a bomb in your city and they were possibly hiding in your neighborhood would you want the police to check so that way if the bomber were to come after you or your loved ones it could have been avoided. of you or your loved ones being harmed?
Yiffox
5 years, 6 months ago
First, they were pointing guns at people.  The 2 videos posted show that, and the women describes it in newest one as horrifying.  There is also a picture of someone taking it from a 2nd story window with police pointing rifle at her from a tank.  (The fact that police were given tanks by the fed is also disturbing)

Second, I dont think it was even at the public's interest.  What was searching door to door supposed to accomplish?  If the bomber was holding people hostage it most certainly would have put their lives and home in greater danger.  Why didn't they use standard procedures and use dogs to track him?  That would seem to be much greater effectiveness in locating him rather than randomly violating people's rights and pointing guns at people.  It seems what they did put the public at greater risk and its a wonder that the police didn't harm someone, even by accident.

So why did they do it?  Why a lockdown (aka martial law) of 1 million people?  Why was it called off after a day when the suspect was not found?  The conspiracy theorists would easily say this was practice.  To indoctrinate people that such things are for their own good and to accept it.

And lastly, the nazi's also used terrorism (that they created - what the conspiracy theorists call a false flag) in arranging to have their parliament building bombed.  Hitler seized power in the aftermath for "public safety".
cooncub
5 years, 5 months ago
I think they might have crossed the line somewhat. That one video was kinda bad as how many people can live within that home, they kept sending more and more out with hands up. Now they know just what the poor guy looks kile so they did go far beyond their right to search.
New Comment:
Move reply box to top
Log in or create an account to comment.