We don't need to worry about the constitution we are looking for terrorist.
Posted on 04/22/2013 6:31:08 PM PDT by grundle
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LrbsUVSVl8
Published on Apr 20, 2013
WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
https://www.facebook.com/PoliceStateUSA
This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
No more from me. If you want to whack off to this sort of thing online, go for it.
Weak.
This issue becomes admissibility of evidence.
If the search is illegal then all the evidence obtained of that search is “fruit of the poisonous tree” and inadmissible.
Now if a police officer is in “hot pursuit” and the suspect runs through an illegal operation in a house, which is in PLAIN sight, then the people running the illegal operation are hosed. (for those in rio linda think a large pile of pot on a coffee table in the middle of the living room)
I do expect lawsuits to go flying regardless. Just because there is an issue does not give the police unfettered ego trips to play judge jury and executioner.
I wasn’t arguing about the reasonableness of any particular searches. I was merely pointing out what the amendment says, because it is almost always misquoted as prohibiting “illegal” searches and seizures. Likewise, the amendment does NOT say “no searches without a warrant,” even though it is summarized that way in the press almost 100% of the time.
I am merely pointing out what the amendment says. Most of the commentary I am seeing is asserting that the 4th amendment was violated because searches were conducted without a warrant. That is NOT a violation of the 4th amendment. Read the amendment and see.
So what is reasonable about forcible shearching every house in an neighborhood, because that’s the last palce a prep was seen?
Oh brother. You're right. THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! Let's all act like menopausal women, or, even better, the crazy conspiracy theorists our political opponents claim us to be!
The Fourth Amendment still controls. When an officer swears an affidavit in support of a search warrant based upon probable cause, he receives a warrant that states, on its face, the particular place to be searched and the particular items or person to be seized.
Exigency must still comport with the remainder of the Fourth even if the warrant requirement is excluded. Exigency only applies to a particular place, not a 20-block radius.
Tell me the difference between your arguemments and those that they use against the 2nd? You use the justifications Security.
You look at that picture and tell me who are those people at that moment more affraid of the terrorist or the police?
“WEAK”
Maybe you are right. Let me try again Mayor Mike?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3011123/posts
You seem to think that if the government isn't marching us to camps as we speak, then there is no danger to the Constitution. I agree some posters have taken dramatic license with the Boston searches, mostly in the form of photo mosaics (guilty) and videos. I equate these to modern day political cartoons (do we really believe our government is represented by a person named "Uncle Sam", or that a talking elephant is the spokesperson of the Republican Party?) which by necessity dramatize the situation. A little.
The majority of the discussion I have seen and taken part in on these threads has been lucid and rational on the part of those critical of the police searches. Either the exigent circumstances exception to the Fourth Amendment is broad and nearly limitless, or it is narrow and specific.
I join my fellow FReepers in stating I believe the case law carving out the exigency exception defines the exception to be narrow and specific - that an officer may enter and search a particular place for a particular person or items without a warrant - when there exists an emergency situation, subject to judicial scrutiny.
I do not believe that the Boston searches were conducted in this way. To mock this position as a "sky is falling" cry is to ignore that many of us opposing the police actions in Boston have legal and criminal justice backgrounds.
Does anyone remember the attack on schoolchildren a more than a few years back, where the chechnians killed children after corraling them into a school auditorium?
I'll never forget it.
There's nothing wrong with deferring judgment, especially when you have friends / family you are relieved are safe.
Many of us are looking at this from a purely analytical perspective, with no emotional attachment. That is why we have drawn our particular conclusions.
If my own family was in the perimeter I would probably now be saying "whatever, my family is safe right now, that's enough." I don't think anyone can blame you for that.
Those who would trade freedom for security deserve neither.
Are you referring to the attacks in Beslan?
True, but it also goes the other way. Such heavy handed tactics also could ‘bullied’ someone into giving up rights and freedoms that they under normal circumstances that they would never do. Many of these cops were so hyped up that a person that stood their ground and not allowed them access to their home which was their right would have been more than likely badly handled and possible their familes as well. Even if they later took such actions to court no one would have every admiited wrong doing, the case would be put off for years and in the end the case would be settled and sealed. As I said when you look at the picture I posted at that moment who were those people more affraid of the terrorist on the lose or the police with machine guns at their door?
all that expensive equiptment.
all that overtime paid in training.
all those federal subsidies.
The most effective weapon against a terrorist was an observant citizen.
must suck to be asking for more money for the keystone cops.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.