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

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

"officers must be mindful of the fact that they cannot demand entry or threaten to break down the door to a home if they do not have independent legal authority for doing so. According to the Court, to do so would constitute an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment and, thereby, deprive the officers of the ability to rely upon the exigent circumstances exception".

Cre dible Resource

I watched the video.

I didn't see anyone ripped from the house.

I did see police getting the occupants to come out one at a time with their hands up. It was a tense situation. The police had been in a gunfight with the suspect hours earlier and he was last seen in that area.

How do you expect the police to handle this? The suspect could have been in the house, jumped out and shot someone.

reply to post by intrptr


Yes I know I authored that thread, but you forgot Gordon Kahl.

Your reply kinda give's your underlining tone, the training they receive, which angers me also. But again that is a separate issue.

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

woah!!, woah!!!, woah!!!!....no one in the article or in the few comments or even some posts I read on the first page here, asked.......was this a raid on a house that had a tip phoned in on it??.....or..... was it a house that a witness told police that they saw a person fitting the description of the suspect, go into????.....or....was it a address that was traced by the FBI of a cell phone call(s) by the suspect????.....everybody jumps to conclusions and immediately call America a police state and craps all over law enforcement, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ALL THE FACTS!!!......do the words DENY IGNORANCE even register with some of you people????????????

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)

I happen to know someone personally whose kid was literally dragged out of their home and cuffed with NO search warrant, no Miranda rights read to him, and only on the basis that some other kid in the neighborhood was drunk, on probation and making noise. .

Charges were subsequently dropped.

I can agree with that. But thats why we pay taxes, so we have people to do that stuff for us. It makes me feel safer, though I dont agree with some LEOs methods.

I don't agree with the events of the op goes to show just how many people are all too willing to have "government/leo to come save them".

All those high ideals out with bathwater anytime the SHTF.

Never fear the Government/leo is here to save you from all them "terrorists" which begs the question who is going to save you from Government/LEO.

America!

Land of the free home of the brave

Originally posted by jimmyx

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

woah!!, woah!!!, woah!!!!....no one in the article or in the few comments or even some posts I read on the first page here, asked.......was this a raid on a house that had a tip phoned in on it??.....or..... was it a house that a witness told police that they saw a person fitting the description of the suspect, go into????.....or....was it a address that was traced by the FBI of a cell phone call(s) by the suspect????.....everybody jumps to conclusions and immediately call America a police state and craps all over law enforcement, WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING ALL THE FACTS!!!......do the words DENY IGNORANCE even register with some of you people????????????

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

...Do you know what we are talking about here? Like, the actual incident? This wasnt a "raid from a phone tip" we are speaking about.

Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas

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

"officers must be mindful of the fact that they cannot demand entry or threaten to break down the door to a home if they do not have independent legal authority for doing so. According to the Court, to do so would constitute an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment and, thereby, deprive the officers of the ability to rely upon the exigent circumstances exception".

Cre dible Resource

LOL Your source at no time referred to imminent threat to public safety. Your creditable source was for guidelines for evidence seizure. and rendering aid.

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.

No.

A free citizenry does NOT allow the government to treat them like criminals just to "err on the side of caution". While I understand that the struggle for order vs. freedom (your "self preservation") defines any society, this clearly crosses the boundary of Order Forsaking Freedom; a clear sign that our society is becoming re-defined. Your complicity in that is just as criminal and morally defunct as that search was.

If you can't see that there is no hope for you. The fact that so many people agree with you means there may not be hope for the rest of us.

You can take your "hugs" and shove 'em. What a useless, placating, piece of drivel. I have seen plenty on this forum that would prompt me to say "You should be ashamed of yourself." But this... Oh, this might just take the prize.

If my emotions are clouding my judgment then good. We should be angry. We should be furious, and yet there are sniveling, sycophants aplenty it would seem encouraging us to accept being treated like animals; which makes me even angrier...

And it should.

Looks like the Taliban going door to door in Afghanistan recruiting more 'soldiers'. Looks like US troops in Afghanistan going door to door looking for 'insurgents'. Looks like what you get when you have a nationalized police force. Looks like a government that is incapable of protecting you, but will use ANY MEANS NECESSARY to protect themselves. Looks like the proof that EVERYONE in the USA should be trying to get they're hands on a good assault rifle and some API ammo. Looks like the folks who drafted the second amendment knew what was coming. Looks like people who have plenty of access to high-cap mags and assault rifles and are willing and able to commit crimes against anybody that gets in they're way. Next time the feral government tells you to 'remain calm and stay in you homes', you should leave you home, lock your door, get out on the street, and raise hell!

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty

Originally posted by S3rvoV3ritas

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

"officers must be mindful of the fact that they cannot demand entry or threaten to break down the door to a home if they do not have independent legal authority for doing so. According to the Court, to do so would constitute an actual or threatened violation of the Fourth Amendment and, thereby, deprive the officers of the ability to rely upon the exigent circumstances exception".

Cre dible Resource

LOL Your source at no time referred to imminent threat to public safety. Your creditable source was for guidelines for evidence seizure. and rendering aid.

LOL, not just for "aid and evidence" as you put it. Since you will refuse to get the meaning of it anyway, I will reprint it here so others aren't misled by your apparent dismissal of the 4th amendment.

From the link...

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in United States v. Rengifo indicated that “[e]xigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm.”

Emphasis added. Going house to house to make sure he isn't there is illegal. Forgoing a warrant when they know exactly where the suspect is (in the boat) is okay. Big difference.

reply to post by rockymcgilicutty


The Dude does no abide over this subject. What thread...?

reply to post by intrptr


Thanks for the enhanced explanation. I would have done it myself however I don't feel like getting into it with someone who can't even read correctly

reply to post by intrptr


LOL I do abide, I don't like what they did. But they didn't violate any rights.

I thought you had seen this thread.

This Thread

reply to post by intrptr


Keep trying the exclusion is was about public safety. Not further harm.

Here are the exclusions that apply to the link you gave me IN FULL. At no time does it mention the exclusion for public safety.

Exigent Circumstances Exception
In spite of the presumption that a police officer’s entry into a home without a warrant is unlawful, both state and federal courts have carved out a number of exceptions to this general rule. Included among the judicially recognized exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances exception. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in United States v. Rengifo indicated that “[e]xigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm.”4

Try HERE

Or HERE

Originally posted by neo96

I can agree with that. But thats why we pay taxes, so we have people to do that stuff for us. It makes me feel safer, though I dont agree with some LEOs methods.

I don't agree with the events of the op goes to show just how many people are all too willing to have "government/leo to come save them".

All those high ideals out with bathwater anytime the SHTF.

Never fear the Government/leo is here to save you from all them "terrorists" which begs the question who is going to save you from Government/LEO.

America!

Land of the free home of the brave

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


You should've seen the stuff the Boston PD did to the residents of Roxbury, Mattapan and Dorchester when Charles Stewart faked a car jacking-murder in 1989 that ended with the shooting of his wife. This wave of police "presence" was pretty mild in comparison, and we all saw photos of the wreckage as teams kicked in doors and ransacked homes of people who simply shared the same skin color as the imaginary perp that Stewart fingered for the crime.

Boston is a rough town. If you take it on, it'll rip your head off. NYC isn't anywhere near as angry or officially aggressive as Boston, and the way the cops handled the Boston bombing case was surprisingly measured and respectful.

You kids wouldn't last a weekend night in Boston.

unless these assholes have a good reason to believe that the suspect is in the house they can't just break in like that.

eventually when they take away our guns we'll have no way to protect ourselves

Originally posted by XxNightAngelusxX
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...?

No, it seems that they were only looking for the suspect and left everything else intact; first hand witnesses claim nothing was confiscated, not even drug paraphernalia. I doubt they went through the people's drawers, either, because they were only looking for the suspect.

reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy


Can I Get a Link to these alleged first hand accounts?