What Boston taught me about bugging out...

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by Hopechest
Would you prefer that law enforcement doesn't respond in force when our citizens are openly being attacked?

Maybe they should just wander around, be nice, and hope they find some useful information. After all, taking the fight to the enemy is not really politically correct now is it.

The police should go after the bad guys that is their job. But they do not have the right to restrict the movement of the public. They certainly don't have the right to force people to stay in their homes and commit searches without warrants. It is a violation of the 4th amendment. In my state if a cop tries to enter my home without a warrant I have every right to shoot him.

It's not a violation of the 4th amendment. Also, you realize it would be impossible to clear areas if they didn't right? So you search 2 out of 50 houses and consider an area cleared? Also I have never heard a state that allows you to shoot a police officer if he enters your house without a warrant. I guess you could try it with the judge but you may have a hard time with that.

Learn what the 4th amendment is they have to have probable cause to search. Fourth Amendment

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

www.slate.com...

Eh, I don't buy it. If a big SHTF scenario were to go down the public as a whole would ignore any such order. The Boston bombing manhunt was a population pulling together for the greater good IMO (one that I predicted would be a bust until the people where on the street with millions of eyes looking around, and I was right)

But also think about the upside if there was a zombie outbreak...the 'take shelter' tactic would make it easy to wipe out the horde before it grew too big to contain

If the authorities were to lock down a metro area, you'd be hard-pressed to "bug out" of it. Indeed, it is exactly what such a move is meant to prevent.

They can't cover EVERYTHING, but they will certainly try, and succeed more than fail at it. Your chances aren't good, unless you can get out during the initial setup stages for it...so knowing the signs would matter.

reply to post by americanwoman


You have an excellent point, OP. I believe that when facing a serious crisis situation our first instinct should be to hold our ground rather than flee in desperation. The reality is that if I have to bug out (with my wife and 2 small children) we will be in serious trouble and much more vulnerable. Though I do have several places in mind, I’m more of a 'BUG IN' kinda guy!

Molon Labe!!!

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Hopechest
What are the alternatives?

Not locking down the city and letting these guys escape to possibly hurt more innocent people?

Sorry some people couldn't bug out right away (although you'd be back already) but living in a society does have its costs.

Its not like anyone is forcing you to live in highly targeted areas that are easily locked down either you know. I would never have that problem at my permanent residence though if they want to put a fence around the desert I suppose they could.

I would rather take my chances being hurt by two people than by 2000 control freak bullies with badges.

I really hope when the next incident happens the police do nothing.

We both know that won't happen. There is a middle ground to be reached here. The police force used in Boston was ridiculous and grossly unconstitutional, all over 1 teenager. I wonder how well a police action/martial law scenario like that would go over in a gun friendly area?

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Covertblack

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime

Originally posted by Hopechest
What are the alternatives?

Not locking down the city and letting these guys escape to possibly hurt more innocent people?

Sorry some people couldn't bug out right away (although you'd be back already) but living in a society does have its costs.

Its not like anyone is forcing you to live in highly targeted areas that are easily locked down either you know. I would never have that problem at my permanent residence though if they want to put a fence around the desert I suppose they could.

I would rather take my chances being hurt by two people than by 2000 control freak bullies with badges.

I really hope when the next incident happens the police do nothing.

We both know that won't happen. There is a middle ground to be reached here. The police force used in Boston was ridiculous and grossly unconstitutional, all over 1 teenager. I wonder how well a police action/martial law scenario like that would go over in a gun friendly area?

I don't agree. What was unconstitutional about it? Did people get yelled at? Yea, so what. Do you think clearing houses is fun? Not only do you have to worry about the suspect shooting you in the face when you clear a room, you don't know what you are walking into. I'm sure the local meth operation would welcome the cops with open arms when they ask to search the house. Gross use of force to me is shooting people who are innocent, yelling at them or pointing a weapon at them when they don't know the threat isn't.

Originally posted by Covertblack
To be honest sheltering in place is your safest option. What would you do walk out into the street?

I have everything I need in my house to survive for an extended period of time. I also have the tactical advantage of knowing the layout of the structure.

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

Agreed, for the most part. I had a conversation this weekend with someone about this. She asked, "If a murderer was loose in the neighborhood and the police came to your door telling you to leave and go somewhere else for your safety, you wouldn't go?" (Gasp). Me: "Hell, no. I feel safer in my own home, i KNOW THE LAYOUT and property, I am familiar with it, and I can protect myself. No way I'm leaving my private property/residence just because a 'bad person' might be 'on the loose.'" She basically responded (can't recall her exact words, but it was something like), "Well, I like to do what they tell me/etc."

That said, our property is fairly large and mostly rural. If i were confined in the city (in an small apartment) I would NOT be happy about not being to leave. While it might be safer inside, and I might (hopefully) have everything I needed, I hate being confined.

reply to post by Destinyone

Moving to a rural area was the best decision I ever made. Just watching the chaos after the bombing last week, made me really appreciate the peace of mind I have living where I do.

Same here. People on here talk about survival and self sufficiency. Once you actually get some land and move away from the city, the difference is astounding. I have friends who live in neighborhoods and in apartments in the city, and I hate going there for any period of time, just because there is hardly any true privacy: walk out in the yard, 20 houses in eyesight; apartment, if there's no balcony it's just a cave. Ugh. So I can imagine how horrible it would be being in the city during a disaster, for multiple reasons (either lockdown, debris/rubble, police presence, etc).

reply to post by americanwoman


Agreed (with your OP). I think is a reason so many people had a problem with the handling and it being locked down. NO freedom of movement (people were even ordered to remain INSIDE their homes), and even if one DID decide to go out, who knows what would have happened (taken away for a time). Arrested, probably, for something or another, but even if there wasn't a "lockdown" as such, there movement would have been impeded by checkpoints of people looking for the suspects. Getting out of the perimeter is nigh impossible.

Obama has the Power to put people away
with No arrest warrant no court case.
and he can execute you!

how many people have disappeared?
if any one asks about it they get threats!

if you live in Boston look for empty houses.

OH! and THEY did Not find him !
a man found blood on his boat !!!

reply to post by Covertblack

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

I don't think exigent circumstances is applicable here. If they knew the bomber was in the immediate vicinity, maybe, but not an entire section of the city, when there is no reasonable probability he is any particular house.

One would think a homeowner would know if someone broke in and was hiding (and would turn that person in) unless that person was suspected of harboring a fugitive.

At what point does exigent circumstances cease? Neighborhood? City? County? State? Country? "Well, we know he's in PA somewhere, but probably no longer in Boston, so let's sweep the state."



Not sure I trust the opinion of a non-lawyer (as the Slate author is not) in this instance (even someone who graduated from Yale with an English Degree); and even though she tries to make a valid argument, and even says that it might apply here, she doesn't know for sure. Likely it doesn't apply. I'd love to see this in court.

Some very good replies in the comments section of that a rticle, too.

reply to post by Liquesence


They didn't know where he was, but assumed he was in a certain area. It's why they set up a perimeter around where they thought he was. In this case I doubt you would find a judge that would rule against the police.

Also the area he may be has to be reasonable. Which the area that was cordoned off was.

reply to post by Liquesence

The day's searches were themselves not without precedent. Following the Atlanta Olympic bombing in 1998, authorities searched the woods of North Carolina. Earlier this year, cabins near Big Bear Lake, California, were searched in the hunt for Christopher Dorner. Neither of those incidents involved as many homes or as much media attention, nor did either occur in heavily populated residential communities. And, as with Friday's hunt, they were likely perfectly legal. "Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search," the ACLU's Rose pointed out. She noted a situation several years ago in which the Boston police wanted to conduct door-to-door searches seeking out illegal firearms. In that case, the ACLU spoke out against the proposal, and it was dropped.

ACLU executive director who has also reviewed the case.

www.theatlanticwire.com...

the real panic started to set in when many understood that they couldnt get to the carry out.

By the way did yous hear.....the idea that they could have used dogs.....and this kid was a odor fest.....a 15 year old blind and lame yapper could have tracked him down. But they held off the dogs just so they could do the house to house deal.

Originally posted by Covertblack

It's not a violation of the 4th amendment. Also, you realize it would be impossible to clear areas if they didn't right? So you search 2 out of 50 houses and consider an area cleared? Also I have never heard a state that allows you to shoot a police officer if he enters your house without a warrant. I guess you could try it with the judge but you may have a hard time with that.

Learn what the 4th amendment is they have to have probable cause to search. Fourth Amendment

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

www.slate.com...

Did you fail to notice the part that says, "tracked to a private home"?

Police still need a reason to believe that the suspect is in that specific area and/or home. They can not simply go door to door for the sake of doing so.

reply to post by MrWendal


See my post above.

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Covertblack

It's not a violation of the 4th amendment. Also, you realize it would be impossible to clear areas if they didn't right? So you search 2 out of 50 houses and consider an area cleared? Also I have never heard a state that allows you to shoot a police officer if he enters your house without a warrant. I guess you could try it with the judge but you may have a hard time with that.

Learn what the 4th amendment is they have to have probable cause to search. Fourth Amendment

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

www.slate.com...

Did you fail to notice the part that says, "tracked to a private home"?

Police still need a reason to believe that the suspect is in that specific area and/or home. They can not simply go door to door for the sake of doing so.

You said it yourself, a specific area, they did that. They cordoned off a perimeter and went door to door within that area. Everyone keeps saying learn the 4th amendment without having a clue about the exceptions. The ACLU has done a cursory view of what occurred and said so far it looks perfectly legal. This coming from the ACLU who are not known to just let things pass by.

I shudder to even imagine the thought of every prepper in Boston bugging out whilst this was going on. Especially those who like black and think they are Rambo.

Would have been a bloodbath.

CX.

Originally posted by Covertblack
They didn't know where he was, but assumed he was in a certain area. It's why they set up a perimeter around where they thought he was. In this case I doubt you would find a judge that would rule against the police.

First off, assuming does not cut it. They can assume he is on Mars, so should we jump in the nearest rocket?

Also the area he may be has to be reasonable. Which the area that was cordoned off was.

edit on 24-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

Contradict yourself much? How can the area be "reasonable" if "they dont know where he was" to begin with?

Originally posted by MrWendal

Originally posted by Covertblack
They didn't know where he was, but assumed he was in a certain area. It's why they set up a perimeter around where they thought he was. In this case I doubt you would find a judge that would rule against the police.

First off, assuming does not cut it. They can assume he is on Mars, so should we jump in the nearest rocket?

Also the area he may be has to be reasonable. Which the area that was cordoned off was.

edit on 24-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2013 by Covertblack because: (no reason given)

Contradict yourself much? How can the area be "reasonable" if "they dont know where he was" to begin with?

Not contradicting myself at all. It's was reasonable to believe he was in a given area. The law doesn't specify exactly what size that is.

reply to post by MrWendal


Well notice that he got away in a car so it is said....but they never said where the car was found and why it was ditched.

Ya know what i learned about my bug out sitch from boston... I need more advanced weaponry. ( and my governments law enforcement is a joke )