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 ...
Yes, but the exigency must be tied to a specific place. I have personally entered hundreds of homes under the exigent circumstances exemption. I have had to justify my actions in court every single time (unless there was a plea deal). I know exactly how exigency works, and how the judicial system interprets it. I know precisely what elements must be present for a search to comport with the Fourth Amendment.
A dangerous madman on the loose simply isn't enough. To search without a warrant, the police must either A) get consent which, in this case is not possible because any consent would be under duress, or B) have probable cause to believe there are exigent circumstances tied to a particular home. The police were searching homes systematically, one by one, in the hope that they would find the bomber. They did not have any reason to believe the bomber was in any particular home they searched. This is what makes the searches improper.
This wasn't the King's Troops busting down doors to root out radicals, subversives, or undesirables.
I agree with you here. Look, I'm a retired police officer. Every one of those cops was trying to stop a madman. I get that. I can't ignore the oath I took both in the military and as a police officer, though. I do not think it is paranoia to point out when government oversteps its limitations. In this case, I think there is a very strong case to be made that they did just that.
Thanks for discussing rationally, unlike some other guys I've dealt with about this recently.
Thanks, don-o! I blame the United States Navy for encouraging me to develop my filthy vocabulary...
Consider: maybe they did. And this is speculation on my part, but perhaps they did. Perhaps they had clearly articulable reasons why they expected the bastard to be within a particular section of Watertown. Perhaps they had even more reason, again, clearly articulable, to believe he was in a certain block. Perhaps that articulable reason simply hasn't yet come to light.
And understood: I have a background in con law myself. Academic, but a background nonetheless. I know how this stuff shakes out from an intellectual standpoint, though not a boots-on-the-ground one like you.
And perhaps all this will shake out in open court. Perhaps those whose homes were searched will bring action against the police. Perhaps when they do, the courts will side with those bringing the action.
Like I wrote - I get it. These are times that try men's souls, after all. But as for me, this revolutionary is going to give the fuzz the benefit of the doubt on this one.
Not even close.
This was cops trying to keep their people safe,
You have a radically different definition of "keeping them safe" than I do. I'm not sure how pointing a gun at someone qualifies as "keeping them safe" in any rational school of thought.
A few snaps on the interwebs doesn’t capture the tenor of the day or the event in any way. Again, I get your point. But I think you’re allowing your political beliefs to twist your interpretation of what went on a bit too much. This was not the Powder House Alarm.
Perhaps you do to some extent, but which do you think is the greatest threat to freedom? A few random hate filled murdering scum or an entire government relentlessly trying to abrogate our rights?
But the latter point is better made outside of the context of an immediate terrorist threat, no?
No because things like this are just what the government uses to further its agenda of oppression. Remember the turd in the white house using the blood of the Newtown shooting victims to further his gun control agenda? This is no different.
On average 40 - 45 people are murdered in the USA EVERY DAY. A lot of the criminals responsible have the same level of concern for human life as did these two (and now one) scum. Where do you draw the line. Blackstone said that it is far better that ten guilty go free than one innocent suffer. Law enforcement has reversed this to it is better that 30,000 suffer than one guilty go free. Not that he would have gone free. His capture was only a matter of time anyway. The only people in the USA who wouldn't recognize him immediately were those in cemetaries and those living in caves.
Israel suffers such attacks repeatedly, but you don’t see them cowering in their homes sending police and troops out to run rough shod over their own, is it to much to expect the same from Authorities here? I think not!
“Then the next day, paramilitary police roamed several blocks of the residential neighborhood searching door-to-door for the islamic terrorist, who, we have every reason to have believed, would have been perfectly content to go out in a blaze of glory.”
There are very good reasons to believe there are a significant number of terrorists in the US waiting for orders or the right time to attack.
Is law enforcement justified in doing warrantless searches until they find them?
I believe our military have caught quite a few of their targets.
Ironic that the police have less restrictive rules of engagement then the military.
Its pretty obvious the police can’t protect people. Even if they could the Supreme Court says they don’t have too. Their job is to collect evidence.
BTW, I heard today that a gun was not found on #2 in the boat.
“So all of the searches were an abject failure.”
This assumes that finding the guy was the objective, and not “further condition the populace to accept further encroachments on their liberty”.
Please use some common sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_Gb6i5DF9k&feature=player_embedded
Systematic House-to-House Raids in Locked-Down Watertown, Massachusetts
WATERTOWN, MA — On Friday, April 19, 2013, the small Boston suburb of Watertown was completely locked down. Governor Deval Patrick ordered that people stay in their homes and that businesses close, as droves of police and soldiers closed down the city. Roads were blocked off, vehicles were prohibited from driving on the roads. Trains, buses, and public transportation was shut down. Anyone caught on the streets would be accosted and searched without probable cause. A No-Fly Zone was imposed overhead. No civilians were allowed in or out of the lockdown zone. National guard soldiers were photographed checking pedestrians’ IDs on the sidewalks. The streets were empty, except for armored police vehicles and military Humvees.
So you support “Papers, bitte”, over here. Good to know.
I support common sense, and do not support rhetorical or visual excess.
The Nazi picture was a common place event in a police state where ethnic minorities were rounded up. The Watertown incident was a case in which police were looking for a desperate, armed terrorist who had killed a police officer and maimed innocent citizens.
These situations are not at all similar.
No police officer wants to die, especially needlessly. What is the problem with cautiously clearing houses with overwhelming force?
“I support common sense, and do not support rhetorical or visual excess.
The Nazi picture was a common place event in a police state where ethnic minorities were rounded up. The Watertown incident was a case in which police were looking for a desperate, armed terrorist who had killed a police officer and maimed innocent citizens.What is the problem with cautiously clearing houses with overwhelming force?”
A little document called the “Constitution”. It bothers socialists of all stripes, including ones in police uniforms.
Thank you for verifying your defense of the unconstituional encroachments in Boston.
There are murderers loose in every city in America; there are “terrorists” (Freepers, conservatives) across the country.
It is all too easy to justify such actions in every city, town and village in the nation, and as you demonstrate, no shortage of people short-sighted enough to defend them.
Your little defense is most helpful in ensuring this becomes widespread, Komrade. The State appreciates your support.
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.