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

Originally posted by Gazrok
reply to post by Observor

 

When there is a public safety exclusion to the 4th in play, yes...

You know, there is a public safety exclusion to Miranda, related to New York v Quarles. But I've been looking for the Supreme Court case that granted one to searching homes based on public safety. I've heard a lot of people saying one exists, and it might, but damned if I can find the relevant case law. Do you know what case it was?

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by guymontag

 

Washington DC was "terrorized" for 3-weeks straight by a sniper team killing civilians. They didn't shut down the nation's capital, patrol the streets in armored vehicles & columned marches - stomping all over everyone's rights, and they shouldn't have done it now.

Big difference, yes. The DC sniper didn't kill an officer, though. These guys did. Its like stomping on a nest of hornets. They respond differently when its one of their own. Therein lies the message.

The other difference is that the Watertown police had good reason to believe the suspect's location was known to a relatively small area, and was willing to use bombs imminently having previously done so immediately before.

In practice, this would count as a "reasonable search" by any court in the circumstances. The searches aren't meant to get evidence against the homeowner, they are meant to find an active, armed, criminal when there is probable cause to believe the criminal is hiding the neighborhood.

Closest analogy: suppose in the sniper's case, law enforcement had seen the sniper team shoot somebody, and then take off in a car, with the shooter taking shots at police during the chase. Then the shooters get out of the car, one is apprehended, and the other, with substantial weaponry runs on foot and hides in a neighborhood.

Would the police response be any different than in Watertown? I doubt it.

Originally posted by thesaneone
This is a sad day for the American people, This is the day America died.

No my son, America died long ago.

Originally posted by mbkennel

Originally posted by intrptr
reply to post by guymontag

 

Washington DC was "terrorized" for 3-weeks straight by a sniper team killing civilians. They didn't shut down the nation's capital, patrol the streets in armored vehicles & columned marches - stomping all over everyone's rights, and they shouldn't have done it now.

Big difference, yes. The DC sniper didn't kill an officer, though. These guys did. Its like stomping on a nest of hornets. They respond differently when its one of their own. Therein lies the message.

The other difference is that the Watertown police had good reason to believe the suspect's location was known to a relatively small area, and was willing to use bombs imminently.

But they had no reason to believe that the suspect was in a specific house.... and that is the only reason to enter a house to search for someone or something. Reason. Reason enough for a judge to issue a warrant.

In practice, this would count as a "reasonable search" by any court in the circumstances. The searches aren't meant to get evidence against the homeowner, they are meant to find an active, armed, criminal when there is probable cause to believe the criminal is hiding the neighborhood.

But they weren't just looking in the neighborhood. They were looking inside peoples houses.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Did the people on this street do anything wrong? It doesn't look like they had any reason to be suspected.

NONE of these efforts were useful. None.

How much you wanna bet that these boys in black were put up to snooping in the homes to find anything that the government deems "suspicious?" Like conspiracy books, certain conspiracy related video games, maybe a computer with ATS open on the screen...?

Even having a copy of the Constitution is considered suspicious under Homeland Security's standards.

Maybe I'm jumping the gun, I dunno. No pun.

All I know is, I live in a government run city. If they have a terrorist search parade here, We are ROYALLY screwed. No joke. Totally screwed.

The people cheering revolts me. I think I speak for everyone when I say;



"Oh, yes! Our lords and masters are here to save us! Save us, oh mighty government! Catch the bad guys for us! Free us from thought and truth and choice! They're jamming their guns in everyone's faces so we don't have to face danger ourselves! Yaaaaay!

reply to post by bloodreviara

Yeah just take it all in stride guys, no biggie, let em break down doors

While I do not wish to see the rights of Americans eroding, I did not see any doors get broken down. Maybe you confused it with some Hollywood movie. They did knock however, in the OP's video. I love a good conspiracy theory but I prefer if the truth is told.
However, I do think it marks a precedent for searches like this any time an act of terrorism occurs on American soil. There are probably manuals and protocols developed exactly for this since 9-11.
And to think stuff like this has been happening for years and years in hostile places like Gaza/West Bank.

Look at this list of terrorist organizations operating there.

www.start.umd.edu...

By comparison, there's only 8 in Chechnya according to a search on that website.

Originally posted by ThirdEyeofHorus
reply to post by bloodreviara

 

Yeah just take it all in stride guys, no biggie, let em break down doors

While I do not wish to see the rights of Americans eroding, I did not see any doors get broken down. Maybe you confused it with some Hollywood movie. They did knock however, in the OP's video. I love a good conspiracy theory but I prefer if the truth is told.
However, I do think it marks a precedent for searches like this any time an act of terrorism occurs on American soil. There are probably manuals and protocols developed exactly for this since 9-11.
And to think stuff like this has been happening for years and years in hostile places like Gaza/West Bank.

Look at this list of terrorist organizations operating there.

www.start.umd.edu...

They stated that they would break the door in absent of someone not answering/being home. Not sure if they actually did this or not but it was officially stated .

reply to post by DarKPenguiN


Ok thanks for that info.

Originally posted by Cryptonomicon

Originally posted by thesaneone
This is a sad day for the American people, This is the day America died.

No my son, America died long ago.

I don't want to be off topic but did you also speak up about the obvious voting discrepancies which got Obama re-elected? Bet not.

In any case, that is not the day America died. It was when JFK was assassinated for going against the Shadow govt and the CFR. One could go even further back and suggest it was when the Federal Reserve Act was passed, or when FDR allowed the bombing of Pearl Harbor.

It really has been a long process, it's just that now more people are noticing.

On topic: what's even more interesting is the alternative....ie the cops and FBI just hope the guy shows up somewhere in public or goes back to his apartment and then they nab him..... maybe he's a ghost like Jason Bourne...maybe they could do like the CIA and monitor everyone on the video surveillance system already embedded.

Originally posted by guymontag

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by guymontag

 

Respectfully, are these not " Exigent circumstances " ( ? )

No they are not. The police cannot search an entire town house-to-house, because they think "the suspect is somewhere in the town".

You might as well repeal the 4th Amendment if we do what you suggest, and what the Boston PD and ATF did in Watertown, as there is no point. They cannot just declare an entire area "searchable" whenever they please.

Further, there is a reason why terrorists "terrorize". Their intention isn't simply casualties, but rather to destabilize their target population, causing their infrastructure and rule of law to collapse. Please understand this, I beg you.

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

Wrong

(6) Exigency exception - Warrantless searches or entries can be done where there is a need to prevent imminent danger to others,

I don't like it put this applies in ALL states.

It has applied for a very long time.

se arch

From the birthplace of Liberty come the birth pangs of a police state.
Anytime there's a terrorist loose this is now the standard procedure.
It's perfectly legal though since we're still under a declared state of National emergency (ongoing for 12 -1/2 years now)


I have to wonder did anybody say no and refuse the police search their home?

reply to post by mbkennel

Closest analogy: suppose in the sniper's case, law enforcement had seen the sniper team shoot somebody, and then take off in a car, with the shooter taking shots at police during the chase. Then the shooters get out of the car, one is apprehended, and the other, with substantial weaponry runs on foot and hides in a neighborhood.

Would the police response be any different than in Watertown? I doubt it.

Good point. Nowadays? Hard to say.

I think at one point the DC snipers were thought to be in a white van right after they shot someone. The best response was a few roadblocks and checkpoints in the area. As it turned out though they were also apprehended the same way, a civilian phoned it in...

Difficult to be in the position of having to choose between inactivity and police state. Damned if you do or don't. If the police sit and wait, less peoples rights get violated. Then people would scream, "Are you doing anything to find him?" The head of sweep central says, "Calm down, he's wounded and hunkered down right around here somewhere, we'll get him. Sooner or later someone will see him and phone it in. Don't panic".

reply to post by Asktheanimals


This site is to deny ignorance yet it is perpetuated on this thread. I read to page 4 not once did anyone bother to look the law up. Read the post above this post I replied to.

Under the circumstances, the search was perfectly legal. It has been challenged many times in court. It is nothing new I remember a case from the 70's.Has anyone ever heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army There was no warrant then either.

To anyone arguing this is an isolated incident. Have a look. www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Asktheanimals

I have to wonder did anybody say no and refuse the police search their home?

Really good question.

Their procedure is to knock. Polite right? Only they keep banging on the door until you answer. They already know you are home. Once the door is open, they put a foot in it... they are not "asking" you anything. They are not "demanding" anything. They say, we are "conducting" a search of your neighborhood.

You could refuse, but they will tell you they will be back (with a warrant) and this time you may not like it - smiles.

Its a way they have, a prepared regimen which doesn't quite deny your rights as much as it gets you to voluntarily give those up.

They practice this a lot. It applies even when they are just doing a simple traffic stop. Do you have a license? do you have any drugs? Do you mind if I "look around"?

reply to post by esdad71

I want to know how many Bostonians were busted for possession two days later .

You can bet that any number of crimes were reported to their respective departments. Narcotics is going to be busy for the next 6 months.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

This site is to deny ignorance yet it is perpetuated on this thread. I read to page 4 not once did anyone bother to look the law up. Read the post above this post I replied to.

Under the circumstances, the search was perfectly legal. It has been challenged many times in court. It is nothing new I remember a case from the 70's.Has anyone ever heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army There was no warrant then either.

The law you are referring to is only valid in PURSUT OF AN ACTIVE SUSPECT, Meaning the police have to have visual sight of the perpetrator and pursuing him. If they visually see him enter a house they can enter THAT house without a warrant. Seeing as these police had NO IDEA where this suspect was they had no right to go house to house just to eliminate the possibilities of him being there. I have heard your argument a hundred times across the internet already and luckily for independent thinkers, no one falls for that argument.

It is rather ironic that the full force of the Boston PD "terrorized" thousands of its residents to get one terrorist but said terrorist was found not by the huge police force but by a single observant resident who would not have seen evidence of the suspect's location had he not come out (of forced lockdown) of his house for a smoke break.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

It is nothing new I remember a case from the 70's.Has anyone ever heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army There was no warrant then either.

Neither were there any survivors. The police burned them up. The same way they did MOVE headquarters in Chicago, and Waco. Lets see, Ruby Ridge and Wounded Knee also come to mind.

Those particular cases and others are what feed the fear of police actions nowadays. They always get their man, regardless of the wreckage they leave behind.

Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas
reply to post by rockymcgilicutty

 

This site is to deny ignorance yet it is perpetuated on this thread. I read to page 4 not once did anyone bother to look the law up. Read the post above this post I replied to.

Under the circumstances, the search was perfectly legal. It has been challenged many times in court. It is nothing new I remember a case from the 70's.Has anyone ever heard of the Symbionese Liberation Army There was no warrant then either.

The law you are referring to is only valid in PURSUT OF AN ACTIVE SUSPECT, Meaning the police have to have visual sight of the perpetrator and pursuing him. If they visually see him enter a house they can enter THAT house without a warrant. Seeing as these police had NO IDEA where this suspect was they had no right to go house to house just to eliminate the possibilities of him being there. I have heard your argument a hundred times across the internet already and luckily for independent thinkers, no one falls for that argument.

edit on 23-4-2013 by S3rvoV3ritas because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-4-2013 by S3rvoV3ritas because: (no reason given)

Nope that is not the only exclusion.

With imminent threat, they can go where they want. For public safety.

Hey I was just as angry as everyone else seeing how they acted on video. But in that regard we need to go into the para military training the now receive. Not the search because they were completely within their bounds.