billvon 2,405
.thumb.jpg.4bb795e2eaf21b8b300039a5e1ec7f92.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuote
You guys who are saying that don't know that; it's completely speculative. It also cleared a whole area so that any movement would be noticed and not caught-up & potentially camouflaged in all the routine traffic & activity. It probably kept the perp pinned down. It kept other civvies & their vehicles off the street so the perp couldn't commit another carjacking. It kept civvies off the street so that if there was another firefight there'd be less chance of civvies being hit by stray fire or taken hostage.
All this tactical Monday morning quarterbacking I'm hearing from non-experts is for the birds.
It also paralysed a major US city to catch a 19 yo kid who wasn't really trying that hard to stay out of sight, never mind leave town. Proving that with 20 kids, you could shut down the entire country.
False clearing a whole area isn't really progress, but it's in house arrest for all the people who live there. As a lawyer I would hope you could appreciate that this isn't China or a member of the USSR empire.
Even in the US, curfews of adults are sometimes (albeit very rarely) a legitimate exercise of police powers. They must be justified by highly exigent circumstances, and they must be limited to the absolute minimum necessary scope and duration. (For example, in the aftermath of some natural disasters like hurricanes, dusk-to-dawn curfews are sometimes imposed for a couple of days to prevent looting.) Anyhow, if any of those elements is somehow lacking - e.g., insufficient exigency, or undue scope or duration, then Yes, it could amount to unconstitutional house arrest. It has to be analyzed very much on a case-by-case basis.
billvon 2,405
>Cut the cops some slack? You mean the ones who are pounding on the door, putting
>weapons in the face and ordering peaceful occupants the hell out with their hands
>above their heads?
And the ones that caught him and stopped his brother while he shot at them and threw bombs at them. And the one that took a bullet in the process. And the one that is now dead at their hands. Yes, I'm willing to cut the cops some slack.
>weapons in the face and ordering peaceful occupants the hell out with their hands
>above their heads?
And the ones that caught him and stopped his brother while he shot at them and threw bombs at them. And the one that took a bullet in the process. And the one that is now dead at their hands. Yes, I'm willing to cut the cops some slack.
http://www.dhs.gov/news/2013/04/19/statement-secretary-napolitano Her favorite song is, "Here's a Quarter Call Someone Who Cares". I cringe when I think of Katrina too. The video of the police taking down that old lady for her small caliber hand gun still burns in my mind. Boston was a different deal. It was the largest, terrorist attack since 9/11. The Department of Home Security can do as they wish.
Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.
jakee 1,257
QuoteEvery second a person stands at their door, locks it, requires the cops to kick it down anyway
But it doesn't. The cops are in no way, shape or form required to force their way into someone's house on the offchance a murder suspect might be inside. It is something they have decided to do, and if they are slowed down as a result then that delay stems from their decisions.
Quotethat person is helping the terrorist and cop killer
So you've established that anyone who doesn't want the cops to stampede through their living room every time there is a 'terrorist and cop killer' (Won't somebody think of the children!?) on the loose is an asshole - but what about normal criminals? Should you just let the police storm your house every time someone is run-of-the-mill murdered in the general vicinity? Raped? Mugged? Where's the cutoff?
Do you want to have an ideagasm?
Quote>Cut the cops some slack? You mean the ones who are pounding on the door, putting
>weapons in the face and ordering peaceful occupants the hell out with their hands
>above their heads?
And the ones that caught him and stopped his brother while he shot at them and threw bombs at them. And the one that took a bullet in the process. And the one that is now dead at their hands. Yes, I'm willing to cut the cops some slack.
Different circumstance.
(1) Private home occupier found dude in his boat.
(2) He called police and invited them to come get him.
(3) Police did
(4) Boat totaled
I have ZERO problem with that. Cops don't need a warrant if they are invited. It's the difference between me offering to go undercover and wear a wire to record my phone calls versus the cops wiretapping my conversations without my knowledge. There's a big difference.
My wife is hotter than your wife.
normiss 622
'Big' is beyond a huge understatement. 
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuote>Cut the cops some slack? You mean the ones who are pounding on the door, putting
>weapons in the face and ordering peaceful occupants the hell out with their hands
>above their heads?
And the ones that caught him and stopped his brother while he shot at them and threw bombs at them. And the one that took a bullet in the process. And the one that is now dead at their hands. Yes, I'm willing to cut the cops some slack.
Different circumstance.
(1) Private home occupier found dude in his boat.
(2) He called police and invited them to come get him.
(3) Police did
(4) Boat totaled
I have ZERO problem with that. Cops don't need a warrant if they are invited. It's the difference between me offering to go undercover and wear a wire to record my phone calls versus the cops wiretapping my conversations without my knowledge. There's a big difference.
I suggest the kind of slack we're talking about is more like this:
[Officer] "Sir, we believe the bomber is in this area. He's heavily armed with guns and explosives, and he's already shot and killed a police officer and taken hostages while escaping. He's wounded and desperate. May we please search your house?
[Resident] >Well, I'm telling you he's not here; and you don't have a warrant. Why should I consent?
We want to make sure he isn't in here holding you hostage, or might have snuck into your house without your knowledge, or might have tossed an explosive in here without your knowledge.
>What happens if I still say no?
Sir, look all around you. You see what's going on here. We need to clear this area house by house. It's a massive, urgent undertaking. We simply don't have time to get search warrants for hundreds of separate houses. And we need every available resource to do this. If you don't let us clear your house, we'll have to divert badly-needed officers, resources and attention to surrounding your house to keep it secure while we conduct the rest of our search. This will only take a few minutes. We need your help. Will you please help us?
=======
At that point, the homeowner still has the right to say no. But he also has the option to cut the police some slack and voluntarily say yes. At that point it's not a legal decision, it's an ethical one. Sometimes the decent thing is saying yes when you have every right to say no.
billvon 2,405
>Different circumstance.
>(1) Private home occupier found dude in his boat.
>(2) He called police and invited them to come get him.
>(3) Police did
>(4) Boat totaled
The MIT cop who was killed did not do any of that. Nor did the cop who was shot, nor the cops who were pursing both of them while they were driving through Watertown throwing explosives at them.
So yes, overall, I am willing to cut them some slack, because that's the environment they were working in. (I am sure you would be too if you were there.) They were wrong to pull people out of houses - but I can also see why they thought it was important to do so. Have a team of criminals bomb a crowd, kill a cop (and try to kill a bunch more) and cops will sometimes screw up and go too far in their attempts to keep them from killing anyone else.
>(1) Private home occupier found dude in his boat.
>(2) He called police and invited them to come get him.
>(3) Police did
>(4) Boat totaled
The MIT cop who was killed did not do any of that. Nor did the cop who was shot, nor the cops who were pursing both of them while they were driving through Watertown throwing explosives at them.
So yes, overall, I am willing to cut them some slack, because that's the environment they were working in. (I am sure you would be too if you were there.) They were wrong to pull people out of houses - but I can also see why they thought it was important to do so. Have a team of criminals bomb a crowd, kill a cop (and try to kill a bunch more) and cops will sometimes screw up and go too far in their attempts to keep them from killing anyone else.
jcd11235 0
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.
I'm interested in how the judicial branch has interpreted this amendment over the years. With just the text, reasonable arguments could be made either way about the legality of the door to door search.
What constitutes an unreasonable search? How is it different from a reasonable search, which the amendment's text could be said to imply is allowed?
Is the government actually forbidden from warrantless searches of homes, or is the government simply forbidden from using evidence from such searches in the prosecution (and perhaps investigation) of the citizen whose home was searched?
Even if the searches were of the unreasonable type, do the affected residents have any avenue of recourse if they are not charged with any crimes based on evidence and information obtained from that search? In what ways can the government be punished for executing warrantless unreasonable searches?
As much as I'd like to be outraged by the actions of the police, I've been around long enough to understand that the SCOTUS (and the rest of the judicial branch) usually have a more nuanced interpretation of the Constitution than what a layman has. At this point, I'm not convinced either way about the legality of the door to door search.
Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!
Quote>Different circumstance.
>(1) Private home occupier found dude in his boat.
>(2) He called police and invited them to come get him.
>(3) Police did
>(4) Boat totaled
The MIT cop who was killed did not do any of that. Nor did the cop who was shot, nor the cops who were pursing both of them while they were driving through Watertown throwing explosives at them.
So yes, overall, I am willing to cut them some slack, because that's the environment they were working in. (I am sure you would be too if you were there.) They were wrong to pull people out of houses - but I can also see why they thought it was important to do so. Have a team of criminals bomb a crowd, kill a cop (and try to kill a bunch more) and cops will sometimes screw up and go too far in their attempts to keep them from killing anyone else.
The issue is framed as if it's the individual cops that decided, as if they were some mob, to conduct these house to house searches. It was not the cops, but the upper "brass" that made this decision and I'm willing to bet they cleared it with Washington first, if the directive did not originate from there in the first place...and those guys know better.
I'd be more than willing to cut the cops slack, but not the guys at the top who are making the calls.
That said, I agree with your original argument. It would be absolutely stupid to fight the cops in that circumstance. Turn your recording device on, politely refuse to exit your house and refuse entry. If they cross the threshold put up zero resistance and comply. If so inclined, sue them later. It's not worth an ass beating or defending yourself in court on BS charges. Better to be on the legal offense than defense in this case.
>in this case) the freedom to suspend, at will, the parts of the constitution they deem
>necessary to do their jobs any way they want to?
To protect the populace against imminent danger, yes, they can violate a whole lot of the Constitution. They can imprison you without trial. They can take your stuff. They can even kill you.
The problem was not the right to do that. They have that. The problem was that this one guy was such an "imminent danger" that they needed to pull people out of their homes in large areas. It was bad judgment on their part.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites