Family ripped from their home at gunpoint; Police storm the property looking for terrorists

reply to post by guymontag


Would I be correct in thinking you condone an " Everyman for himself " policy for civilian protection ?

It seems to me the " Wild West " is still with us.

There lies the selfish road to chaos and anarchy, methinks.

And innocent people being killed or injured.

Glad I live in the U.K.

reply to post by guymontag


You know whats a shame? It's that if all of us, the citizens, banded and worked together we could overpower and overthrow this tyranny. Power in numbers. The brain is the most powerful weapon. numbers+brainpower divided by # of bad guys= good guys win.

Unfortunately, many, many, many people already feel helpless and hopeless so they've already counted themselves out. It's like playing a game of red rover and half the people leave and are going to play on the swings instead.

reply to post by MrJohnSmith


No I'm not implying an anarchist "every man for himself" governance. I don't know why you're insinuating this -- further I don't know why I'm arguing the value of my constitutional rights with someone who prefers I have them taken away, who doesn't even live in my country.

There has never been a precedent where we needed to lock down our entire population to find "bad people". This is not a prison, the police are not our correctional officers. They will do what they have always done in cases of apprehending dangerous suspects. Nothing needs to change.

If we change to the method presented in Watertown, I guarantee you the United States will become more dangerous than ever in it's united history. That shouldn't matter to you, as you said, because you don't live there.

Originally posted by kimish

Try to look at it from both sides of the fence.

Hell, I see it as a gross violation of civil rights. I think everyone involved should drag them to federal court.

Originally posted by milkyway12
reply to post by MrJohnSmith

 

The police officers were willing to deal with the repercussions to save lives, what of it?

Time to pay for your sins. You guess right in that case, ok. Wrong, you should lose your certification and face having your limited immunity set aside and the civilian sue your personal ass right off. If you end up homeless, well, you'll serve as a living example to your brethren. Deal with the repercussions.

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by thesaneone

 

But they didnt know who else was involved and to what extent. Hence, err on the side of caution which also ties into self preservation.

They never do. But they have ways that are lawful to do their research, and ways that are not. If they see the suspect enter your home, fine, that's exigent and falls under the "hot pursuit" aegis. If they do NOT see the perp flee into your home, then they cannot do a search without warrants. Period. And I pray that they are raped in court over it. Otherwise, it'll just make them more likely to abuse their authority. A few burned cops and it's an example of what not to do. Let them get by with it, and it's a bad example.

reply to post by guymontag


You are entitled to your opinion, which I respect. I have' nt heard anyone tell me how they could deal with this aspect of the search for the Boston Bombers better than the security agencies did, though.

Summarising, you would prefer a gentlemanly house search, your rights and freedoms
observed to the letter, whilst the terrorists trample all over a citizens right to life ?
This does not seem quite right to me, but then I'm British.

Originally posted by kimish
Playing devils advocate, These men and women were looking for a killer. He could have killed more. There may have been more involved with him that the officers didn't know of.

When they had the people coming out of their houses with their hands up, they didn't know who these people were. They were looking out for themselves as well. Some of these people may have been terrorist or disgruntled or all jacked up on God knows what ready to squeeze a trigger into some pigs head. We simply don't know. Erring on the side of caution is only the intelligent thing to do. No matter how 'mean' it looks.

Try to look at it from both sides of the fence.

edit on 23-4-2013 by kimish because: (no reason given)

"We must lock down Boston for the sake of the ______________!!!!"

"If it only saves just one life!!!!"

"But ...but....Boston is a different city than Atlanta! So what that no Olympic events were cancelled after the Centennial Park Bombing! So what that the city was not locked down!

"We need to shut down all mass transit, all air traffic, no taxis, no buses, everybody needs to lock themselves up inside their homes and no businesses are to remain open ...... except for .... Dunkin Donuts"

On block after block of the Boston’s Financial District and Downtown Crossing, Starbucks shops went dark as the city locked down, spurred by a manhunt for the second marathon bombing suspect. Dunkin’ Donuts stayed open.

On block after block of the Boston’s Financial District and Downtown Crossing, Starbucks shops went dark as the city locked down, spurred by a manhunt for the second marathon bombing suspect. Dunkin’ Donuts stayed open. Law enforcement asked the chain to keep some restaurants open in locked-down communities to provide hot coffee and food to police and other emergency workers, including in Watertown, the focus of the search for the bombing suspect. Dunkin’ is providing its products to them for free. “At the direction of authorities, select Dunkin’ Donuts restaurants in the Boston area are open to take care of needs of law enforcement and first responders,” spokeswoman Lindsay Harrington explained via email. “We are encouraging our guests to state home today and abide by the lockdown, per the Governor’s recommendation.”

www.bostonglobe.com...

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy

 

A very emotive phrase "Ripped from their home at gunpoint "

These officers were looking for armed terrorists, who might be prepared to shoot and bomb their way out of the situation.

The householders treatment may appear harsh, but I guess the officers can't afford to pussyfoot around, in this situation. Surely a small price to pay for the freedom Americans
prize ?

They were getting the householders out of harms way too, in the event of a shoot out ?

Did you know that the 2nd Amendment has already been stripped away from Boston? Do you see clearly how it turned into a police state overnight?

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by guymontag

 

You are entitled to your opinion, which I respect. I have' nt heard anyone tell me how they could deal with this aspect of the search for the Boston Bombers better than the security agencies did, though.

Did it find anything? No. Again, if they see the suspect flee into your home, then yes, there is precedent for them to do an exigent search. But "hey, this is somewhere near where we think something might have happened" is not. That is where you get past "this is legal" and "this is not, but maybe we can bluff you into it by force, we're cops".

Summarising, you would prefer a gentlemanly house search, your rights and freedoms
observed to the letter, whilst the terrorists trample all over a citizens right to life ?
This does not seem quite right to me, but then I'm British.

Actually, yes. If the SWAT teams were as constrained by law as soldiers are by LOAC and UCMJ, they'd all be facing NJP or courts martial.

reply to post by Bedlam


You are right. They did not find anything / anyone they were looking for.

That is with the benefit of hindsight, surely.....?

Another way of looking at this situation. The rights of the few are outweighed by the rights of the many.

I.e. these good householders rights and freedoms may or may not have been temporarily infringed, in the effort to capture or kill terrorists who may have gone on to kill a lot more people, if not apprehended...doesn't that make sense ?

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Bedlam

 

You are right. They did not find anything / anyone they were looking for.

That is with the benefit of hindsight, surely.....?

Another way of looking at this situation. The rights of the few are outweighed by the rights of the many.

I.e. these good householders rights and freedoms may or may not have been temporarily infringed, in the effort to capture or kill terrorists who may have gone on to kill a lot more people, if not apprehended...doesn't that make sense ?

I try and look at it from this angle .... Does LA go into lock down when there has been gangland violence? No ... they call it "Tuesday".

reply to post by GeisterFahrer


You mean it's the norm ? For L.A, anyway..

I am astounded reading this thread. So many people willing to sacrifice liberty for safety. OK, well if thats the way you want it for yourself I'm cool with that but why should I be required to do the same?

You folks that want to sacrifice liberty go ahead, just count the rest of us out.

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by GeisterFahrer

 

You mean it's the norm ? For L.A, anyway..

There are ways to capture suspects without locking the entire city down. Police Departments across the nation have been known to do this .. so yes, that is "the norm". What isn't "the norm" is shutting a city entirely down, except for Dunkin Donuts of course, and going on a house to house search by force.

Hitler would be amused.

reply to post by kimish


Wow.

The fact remains, the government needs probable cause to search. There was not probable cause to search every house, only possibly those directly near or adjacent to where the suspect may have been actually identified.

It is similar to the story from a few months back where LE set up road blocks and demanded to search every car in the vicinity of a bank robbery. There were pics of old ladies and families with kids sitting on the curb with their hands in the air.

I wonder how many other, unrelated, arrests were made that day in Watertown and Cambridge?

Originally posted by kosmicjack
reply to post by kimish

 

Wow.

The fact remains, the government needs probable cause to search. There was not probable cause to search every house, only possibly those directly near or adjacent to where the suspect may have been actually identified.

It is similar to the story from a few months back where LE set up road blocks and demanded to search every car in the vicinity of a bank robbery. There were pics of old ladies and families with kids sitting on the curb with their hands in the air.

I wonder how many other, unrelated, arrests were made that day in Watertown and Cambridge?

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith

Another way of looking at this situation. The rights of the few are outweighed by the rights of the many....doesn't that make sense ?

Here, supposedly, the rights of the many are trumped by the Bill of Rights, which exists to protect the individual from the masses. When that is over, we'll be just like you, pre Magna Carta. Something you've given over, apparently. But take heart, apparently we're about done with that pesky document. Gets in the gubmint's way, dontchaknow.

You know what is totally messed up?

We are about a click away from citizens being deemed "suspicious" simply for exercising their constitutional rights...

If I hear one more time "Well, if you aren't doing anything wrong, you shouldn't be worried..." I'm going to puke.

Tell that to the hundreds or thousands each year who get their cash confiscated simply because LE thought they had too much of it during a routine traffic stop in which they innocently and naively agreed to a search. Look it up.

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by Bedlam

 

Another way of looking at this situation. The rights of the few are outweighed by the rights of the many.

Did someone take a vote in Watertown and the many decided it was a good idea?
Personally I don't care much for that either, sounds like mob rule but at least we might have some way of judging if the many really wanted their rights trampled.

The rights of the many can never outweigh the rights of the individual, the many only get their rights from what the individuals give them and they can not give what they do have.