Nazi Style Raids. Boston Bombing. Video Going Viral.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Boston's Door-to-Door Searches Weren't Illegal, Even Though They Looked Bad

There were two components to last week's shelter-in-place request in Watertown, Massachusetts. The first was a request that people not to leave home. The second was a door-to-door search by heavily armed law enforcement officials. Those are two very different things, with different implications. But neither was illegal.
...
The ACLU agreed. In a phone interview Monday, Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, told The Atlantic Wire that her organization was in contact with attorneys for the city, state, and the Department of Homeland Security on Friday.
...
Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause.

Are there any links to stories told BY THE PEOPLE whose houses were searched? How did they feel about this? Anyone?

Good Article. I like how it explicitly states how the acts weren't illegal and then goes on to say how they still need probable cause.

Must've been really easy for the commanding officer (or whoever gave the order to go house-to-house) to justify in his head that the suspect is "probably" in one of the house's in Watertown.

reply to post by S3rvoV3ritas

Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas
Must've been really easy for the commanding officer (or whoever gave the order to go house-to-house) to justify in his head that the suspect is "probably" in one of the house's in Watertown.

They had the town on lock down. I think it's pretty reasonable to assume that the kid was hiding on someone's property somewhere. And he was.

Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas

Must've been really easy for the commanding officer (or whoever gave the order to go house-to-house) to justify in his head that the suspect is "probably" in one of the house's in Watertown.

Why should commanding officers determine when probable cause exists? What gives them that right?

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
Boston's Door-to-Door Searches Weren't Illegal, Even Though They Looked Bad

There were two components to last week's shelter-in-place request in Watertown, Massachusetts. The first was a request that people not to leave home. The second was a door-to-door search by heavily armed law enforcement officials. Those are two very different things, with different implications. But neither was illegal.
...
The ACLU agreed. In a phone interview Monday, Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, told The Atlantic Wire that her organization was in contact with attorneys for the city, state, and the Department of Homeland Security on Friday.
...
Under the Fourth Amendment, homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances, like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause.

Are there any links to stories told BY THE PEOPLE whose houses were searched? How did they feel about this? Anyone?

Why? So you can be identified and profiled by the new American Stasi as "possible resistance" or "trouble maker" or "uncooperative" for future events?

Yes because it's entirely possible for 2 individuals to hold an entire city hostage...

It is possible for guys with bombs that already killed or maimed close to 200 people to hold a smaller town outside a big city hostage, if the police knows he is there, yes. That is surprising why? Had there NOT been all those police, if the streets had NOT been clear, there would have been a fine chance that fellow would have gotten away. And wanting revenge after his brother had been killed.

Also I find it laughable that these threads try to maximize the drama.. "ripped from their homes at gunpoint!" and "Nazi style raids!"

Most individuals interviewed thought the police handled it very professionally. I still do think the police and military overreacted, but only because we are not used to the sort of terrorism that many other countries experience on a weekly basis. And it's also ironic that the reason we've had that freedom from such terror is because of law enforcement and the military. Of course, they will get no credit for that.

There were reports of residents having guns pulled on them when they refused a search.

Agents/law enforcement also confiscated items from residents that had nothing to do with the 'manhunt' for the supposed terrorists.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
There were reports of residents having guns pulled on them when they refused a search.

Agents/law enforcement also confiscated items from residents that had nothing to do with the 'manhunt' for the supposed terrorists.

I guess you missed the subsequent reports that said the earlier reports were all wrong.

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

I guess you missed the subsequent reports that said the earlier reports were all wrong.

Just about every report put out regarding this whole affair had later reports issued stating earlier reports were wrong.

There is no truth in journalism anymore, none required. The courts declared it is all considered entertainment now.