This is what the "voluntary" house-to-house searches looked like in Watertown

[yournamehere]

you know these to be 4th ammendment violations? or are you assuming based on google searches?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[yournamehere]

A resident of Watertown, MA, photographs a man in combat fatigues pointing a rifle at him from the turret of his military Humvee. Everyone in the town was a potential threat that day, as police & military performed house-to-house searches for terrorists.

When guns are pointed at your family, how "voluntary" is it?

The only thing they are missing is blue helmets.

 

[yournamehere]

well if it's on the internet, it must be true

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[yournamehere]

They were raiding homes that had a suspected bomber but when they find the suspected bomber they were scared to get close to him and sent in a robot with flash bangs. Why weren't the SWAT teams scared of the bomber when raiding the houses?

THIS!! FU jackboots. I saw the vid of them bullying kids and obvious non suspects. Mall cops and prison guards. I wonder how many rounds the two bombers fired compared to the good guys. I also wonder if the good guys took into consideration of where the rounds were going down range.

 

[yournamehere]

Do you think anybody ever applauded the SS, Nazis, or Hitler? Don't take this as a comparison between the Nazis and Police as I'm not making that comparison.

Sure they [the Nazis] did a lot of bad things... But can you honestly say there wasn't one person ever that was happy and/or thankful? I'm not saying they were justified or that the end justified the means. I'm sure there were those who were thankful for what Hitler and the SS did for Germany - definitely not as many as were negatively affected, but there surely were some that were like minded. Showing evidence that those people existed does not make the crimes that were perpetrated any "less bad".

Posting pictures of sheeple applauding police isn't an indication of anything beyond the fact that the sheeple, in this case, likely don't know what freedom is.

Giving up freedom for temporary security isn't security or freedom at all. Freedom cannot be taken or it never existed to begin with.

I don't claim to be some expert or anything of the sort but imho the end does not justify the means - this is just my .

Edit:

Man those uniforms make them look like the good guys.

 

[yournamehere]

OK... First things first: I've not watched these videos. I've gotten a good idea what they contain by reading the commentary.
Second: First responders are those who respond first to an incident. Sometimes they're professionals, i.e. LEO, FF, EMT, sometimes they're just John Q. Public who happens to be there and willing to help someone in need.
Third:



A member of our board here was telling me a long while back about some time he spent in NOLA around the time of Katrina's impact. He told me, among other things, that the intel he and his group were given was.... well, let's just say it was not the whole truth. I'm not aware if any of it was truthful or not.

With that basis, I think it's fair to say that he and the troops he was with did things that circumvented Constitutional protections of rights, but did so based on the age-old cry of necessity. (Say for example, "We have intel that some people on this street are hoarding weapons with the intent of looting others' property." or some such example. Don't use that one literally, it's just the first that came to mind for me. Unlike some people in positions of power, lying does not come naturally to me.)

Is it such a stretch to think that the rank and file officer has no "nefarious plan"? He's following an order (and please, no Nuremberg quotes) to locate and take into custody a specific person in a specific area.

Put in more specific terms, is it possible that both sides are correct in this argument? Rambone has pointed out abuses of rights, carried out for what the actor believes is a noble purpose (stopping a mass-murderer) and those giving him the order to do so may be a little less noble than they're thought to be in giving it. (Correct me if I'm mistaken, but have I not heard several LEOs say that the chiefs, in their politically-appointed jobs, represent their bosses more than their officers?) Isn't it possible that even if the bombing, etc., IS a foreign-based terror campaign, that someone is making hay while the sun shines, not letting the crisis go to waste, slowly nudging the needle toward statism?

From the other side of that coin, for those embracing the conspiracy theory inherent in this, given, let's say, a three-square-block area in which a suspect is thought to be, how do you, as a person who has taken a job to maintain order and enforce the law, locate that specific lawbreaker, a mass-murderer who very possibly has wired himself with explosives and intends God-knows-what at some real or imagined trigger point, other than doing a house-to-house?

I'll be honest, I don't know the answer to this. In an ideal world, a single officer could go to the door, politely knock and wait for the homeowner to answer, explain the situation and ask if the suspect is there. He would receive a truthful answer to the best of the homeowner's knowledge and go about his duties, searching elsewhere. or even searching that property with the owner's permission. Obviously, this is not an ideal world, and that solution would not work, one reason for which being the whole "to the best of his knowledge" thing, and another being the perception that LEOs have some nefarious plan for world domination.

So.... those standing against the police actions here, what is your suggestion for locating this person who is suspected of killing and who may have further plans to do so?

I'll add here that I'm not yet taking any side on this issue, primarily because I think both sides have dug their heels in and are refusing to acknowledge any truth in the other's positions.

Blessings,
Bill

You have obviously taken a side. There was ONE suspect. Why dont we spend that much effort chasing gangs in drug shootings? Or illegals? It makes me vomitt when I read the gradual acceptance of the police state. Are you not a lawyer or play one on TV? Read this part again.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

[yournamehere]

That is the house where BG #2 lived.

Proof? And did they have a warrant?

 

[yournamehere]

What business is it of yours to second guess people 1k miles away if people are willing to consent to a search of their home? Allowing law enforcement to search your home is an equal exercise of liberty

Uh,, the vid sourced clearly shows the gestapo at work. Not a instance of asking for permission to search. Bullies and jackoffs on a power trip. Someday they make come to your home but then again it sounds like you get a woody from being on the other side of the door.

 

[Kutnupe14]

As long as we ignore the photographs of people being marched around with their hands up, eyewitness accounts, media reports, and the governor's proud willingness to violate the 4th amendment.


The abuses in NOLA were easy for people to get riled up over because there were no terrorists involved. Throw in a middle easterner and an explosion and Americans bend over backwards to justify house-to-house searches (and suspension of due process, and torture, and so on). Fear makes people give away their birthright, and terrorism works like a charm.


Maybe I am missing the point, but I am increasingly disgusted with both. Society is not improving.


The house-to-house searches were wrong either way. The other aspects of each case are too different to compare.

Ok, I'll ask again, which in your opinion, was the more egregious constitutional violation, Boston or New Orleans?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The only thing they are missing is blue helmets.

I take it you aren't very versed in how those guys wearing "blue helmets" operate? Those that choose (or have been chosen) to wear a "blue helmet," often do so at great risk of death or bodily injury. Those in "blue helmets," or the military arm of the United Nations (UN) are about as useless as nipples on a Roman breastplate. "Blue Helmets," are repeatedly restrained from engaging hostile forces or defending endangered populaces. Those guys in the pictures, I assure you, will fire if they or others are threatened.

 

[Kutnupe14]

You have obviously taken a side. There was ONE suspect. Why dont we spend that much effort chasing gangs in drug shootings? Or illegals? It makes me vomitt when I read the gradual acceptance of the police state. Are you not a lawyer or play one on TV? Read this part again.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Did you miss that word? Here, I'll repeat it "unreasonable." The converse being "reasonable." There is a wide variety of interpretation concerning reasonableness. However, a good litmus test lies with the individual on a case by case basis. That said, out of the tens of thousands of people that were involved in this instance, we have only been provided with a few statements. In one instance, a guy was upset but freely admits that he gave consent... that whether he likes it or not, falls into the "reasonable" category. Another guy says guys were pointed at him, and he was told to get out.... It may have happened just like that, but that guy fails to indicate a displeasure with the encounter when taking the entire situation into consideration.
So, besides the people hundreds of miles away who are kind enough to be the proxy of the anger these people apparently should have, THERE-STILL-HASNT-BEEN-A-PERSON-AFFECTED-BY-THIS,-THAT-HAS-CALLED-THE-LE-RESPONSE-"UNREASONABLE."

 

[Destro]

Uh,, the vid sourced clearly shows the gestapo at work. Not a instance of asking for permission to search. Bullies and jackoffs on a power trip. Someday they make come to your home but then again it sounds like you get a woody from being on the other side of the door.

I will believe they had a warrant until claimed otherwise by someone affected

 

[drillsgt]

Did you miss that word? Here, I'll repeat it "unreasonable." The converse being "reasonable." There is a wide variety of interpretation concerning reasonableness. However, a good litmus test lies with the individual on a case by case basis. That said, out of the tens of thousands of people that were involved in this instance, we have only been provided with a few statements. In one instance, a guy was upset but freely admits that he gave consent... that whether he likes it or not, falls into the "reasonable" category. Another guy says guys were pointed at him, and he was told to get out.... It may have happened just like that, but that guy fails to indicate a displeasure with the encounter when taking the entire situation into consideration.
So, besides the people hundreds of miles away who are kind enough to be the proxy of the anger these people apparently should have, THERE-STILL-HASNT-BEEN-A-PERSON-AFFECTED-BY-THIS,-THAT-HAS-CALLED-THE-LE-RESPONSE-"UNREASONABLE."

That's probably true but they were idiots, I don't like potential precedent that could eventually make it's way to other parts of the country enabled by these fools. What they should have done is load their glock and AR set it by the couch, enjoyed their mandatory day off and watched some movies. When the cops come just tell them were good here carry on. This response by LE was nothing more than masturbating with guns, it had no purpose other than appearing they were doing something and looking proactive to the sheeple.

 

[UncleMike]

Looks like this thread has served it's intended purpose.
It seems that certain members here will stoop to any depths to smear LEO's.
It's no wonder that most Law Enforcement personnel avoid this site like the plague.
Like I've said before.
Nearly all LEO's are pro Second Amendment.
It's not too bright to crap on others who are on your side in a struggle to maintain our Rights just because you have a hard on for Authority.

 

[ghuns]

Nearly all LEO's are pro Second Amendment.
It's not too bright to crap on others who are on your side in a struggle to maintain our Rights just because you have a hard on for Authority.

If only nearly all LEO's and their bosses were pro Fourth Amendment, there would be far fewer threads like this.

Far too many in law enforcement view it as an impediment to doing their job. I many cases it is. But that is how it is supposed to be. It should be difficult to subject a person, their home or their vehicle to a search by the state.

 

[drillsgt]

Looks like this thread has served it's intended purpose.
It seems that certain members here will stoop to any depths to smear LEO's.
It's no wonder that most Law Enforcement personnel avoid this site like the plague.
Like I've said before.
Nearly all LEO's are pro Second Amendment.
It's not too bright to crap on others who are on your side in a struggle to maintain our Rights just because you have a hard on for Authority.

Were just bashing Mass cops, until IN cops do something crazy they're still good guys IMO. I was more blasting the weak citizens than the cops anyway, the cops will do what you allow them too it's just human nature.

 

[actaeon277]

So, I wonder what would have happened if you just sat there watching TV and didn't answer the door.

 

[Bunnykid68]

So, I wonder what would have happened if you just sat there watching TV and didn't answer the door.

This SWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma Instead - informationliberation

 

[drillsgt]

This SWAT Team Brings TV Crew To Film Raid Against Threatening Internet Critic -- Raids Innocent Grandma Instead - informationliberation

We can't ever forget Evansville's finest!

 

[rambone]

Ok, I'll ask again, which in your opinion, was the more egregious constitutional violation, Boston or New Orleans?

These situations had some similarities and many differences. We shouldn't be dealing with an "either/or" choice between two bad reactions.

Katrina was a much bigger, longer drawn out event. Police reaction included opening fire on innocent people, house-to-house searches, and people being detained in FEMA camps (literally). Does that sound preferable? No, but why the heck is that my alternative?

I'd say there were more constitutional violations in NOLA, but that doesn't excuse the violations in Watertown.

Did you miss that word? Here, I'll repeat it "unreasonable." The converse being "reasonable." There is a wide variety of interpretation concerning reasonableness. However, a good litmus test lies with the individual on a case by case basis. That said, out of the tens of thousands of people that were involved in this instance, we have only been provided with a few statements. In one instance, a guy was upset but freely admits that he gave consent... that whether he likes it or not, falls into the "reasonable" category. Another guy says guys were pointed at him, and he was told to get out.... It may have happened just like that, but that guy fails to indicate a displeasure with the encounter when taking the entire situation into consideration.
So, besides the people hundreds of miles away who are kind enough to be the proxy of the anger these people apparently should have, THERE-STILL-HASNT-BEEN-A-PERSON-AFFECTED-BY-THIS,-THAT-HAS-CALLED-THE-LE-RESPONSE-"UNREASONABLE."

I don't think your standard is acceptable. Even if every resident cheers for checkpoints, blanket searches, house to house raids, gun confiscation, or whatever else, that doesn't make it right.

The template for the War on Terror is being laid out, in one of the most statist, boot-licking parts of the country. This will be the standard used everywhere else, wait and see. And its being proven on people whom view subjugation as a way of life. Disarmament and Stop-n-Frisk are the norm out there. And frankly it is upsetting to me even if I am hundreds of miles away, because THEIR rights are also MY rights. This was a federal operation and certainly applicable to us all.

I will weigh these techniques on their merits, not by the sheepish responses of these people. They have a child-like view of their rights and were scared into submission; I will not be surprised when they thank the men who raid their homes. One guy in Boston was quoted, "They can give me a cavity search right now and I'd be perfectly happy." This is the mentality we're dealing with.