At the time, the Boston police department and federal agents were barely criticized, but now many are concerned about the dangerous precedent that could lead to more police searches using the rationale of ‘exigent circumstances’ as an excuse.
Yeah. But so far, the concern is from keyboard commandos who live hundreds or thousands of miles from where a terrorist was on the loose who had killed and maimed almost two hundred American citizens, including children.
Near as I can tell, the people of Watertown are still cheering the police.
>>Near as I can tell, the people of Watertown are still cheering the police.
Of course they are...its never hard to find boot-lickers no matter how atrocious the behavior.
You sure like to throw that "keyboard commando" insult around. I spent 20 years as a police officer, suffering my share of attacks and injuries and receiving a fair share of commendations. I'm not trying to boast, but to show how your "keyboard commando" insult is ridiculous. It's an ad hominem attack designed to deflect from your inability to make your case succinctly. I think I have every right to question the police, I've been in their shoes.
You never answered my question from the other thread (for obvious reasons), you just misdirected to another topic:
Given that on an almost nightly basis, violent felons (murderers, armed carjackers, AWIK [Assault with Intent to Kill], etc.) run from the police in DC and get away into a neighborhood, do you support the DC police doing each night what Boston did in this particular event?
The people in Watertown cheering the police didn't have this happen to them and haven't seen this video. They will now and many won't be cheering.
The authorities tell people to lock their doors and shelter in place and then they violate their own orders.
They manhandled this family worse than they did the thug himself.
And while they are doing this the thug is sheltering in place 5 blocks down the street in a boat that they should have been searching with their 9000 Boston Strong instead of terrorizing this family.
WHAT two hundred American’s killed and maimed?
Yep, that's how liberty dies ... with thunderous applause.
Do you also advocate this tactic for cleaning up the barbarian gangs in Chicago killing ten people every week?
Sad that any US citizen would cheer police demanding that you come out of your castle. Doubtful I would have complied.
Most Good Germans cheered too.
That "terrorist" would be dead meat if he showed his face around any one of the homes in my neighborhood. There would be guys with cell phones, dogs, and guns just waiting to make his day rather unpleasant. One of us is an ex-cop and former Army Ranger.
This was the epitome of an unreasonable search process. If the police had a blood trail, or had a report of the perp entering a particular house, that would be "hot pursuit" justifying a warrantless and potentially a forcible entry. This was not. They had no legal or moral grounds for the search they conducted. It was a terrible precedent, and forbodes for much worse to come should the people find this tolerable, much less laudatory.
Worse, and despite the public accolades, that search method was COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. Just as the DC sniper case, which also violated the Constitutional rights of the people with COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE warrantless searches of their cars, it was a citizen who found the perp, and not the police.
This kind of "You get out of the way and let the professionals handle it; we'll get 'em, no matter what," policy is simply not worth the cost. It trains the police to operate on a hair trigger. It teaches the police that the houses and property of citizens are not to be held sacred. It places the arms and security of the people at risk. It damages property. It costs such a fortune to equip and maintain these SWAT teams that cities and counties are breaking under the retirement costs. It is exactly the "civilian national security force" Obama touted to cheering Democrats. Apparently you think it's a great idea too.
This state of affairs would be an anathema to the founders, who saw THE PEOPLE as the primary source of law enforcement. Militarized police, equipped as you saw in the video, IS equivalent to what the Founders feared in a standing army. It is why we have the Fourth Amendment they ignored completely in the name of "officer safety."
Nor is this some "unprecedented situation" by virtue of new technology. Hell, people used to be able to buy dynamite at the local hardware store 100 years ago. So to imply that the mere fact that these two were crazy Islamists with bombs somehow makes things any different would be an implication without merit. There is nothing new here.
Hence, by the condescension and contempt in your post for conservatives who see this action for what it was, AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, yours argument descends to an 'ends justifies means' position, the kind of justification used by every tyrant in history. I suggest you read Aristotle's Ethics, as over two thousand years ago he taught what should be known today in every grade school: 'No one selects "an end" unless it is a means to something else. There are no "ends;" there are only means.'
That "terrorist" would be dead meat if he showed his face around any one of the homes in my neighborhood. There would be guys with cell phones, dogs, and guns just waiting to make his day rather unpleasant. One of us is an ex-cop and former Army Ranger.
This was the epitome of an unreasonable search process. If the police had a blood trail, or had a report of the perp entering a particular house, that would be "hot pursuit" justifying a warrantless and potentially a forcible entry. This was not. They had no legal or moral grounds for the search they conducted. It was a terrible precedent, and forbodes for much worse to come should the people find this tolerable, much less laudatory.
Worse, and despite the public accolades, that search method was COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE. Just as the DC sniper case, which also violated the Constitutional rights of the people with COMPLETELY INEFFECTIVE warrantless searches of their cars, it was a citizen who found the perp, and not the police.
This kind of "You get out of the way and let the professionals handle it; we'll get 'em, no matter what," policy is simply not worth the cost. It trains the police to operate on a hair trigger. It teaches the police that the houses and property of citizens are not to be held sacred. It places the arms and security of the people at risk. It damages property. It costs such a fortune to equip and maintain these SWAT teams that cities and counties are breaking under the retirement costs. It is exactly the "civilian national security force" Obama touted to cheering Democrats. Apparently you think it's a great idea too.
This state of affairs would be an anathema to the founders, who saw THE PEOPLE as the primary source of law enforcement. Militarized police, equipped as you saw in the video, IS equivalent to what the Founders feared in a standing army. It is why we have the Fourth Amendment they ignored completely in the name of "officer safety."
Nor is this some "unprecedented situation" by virtue of new technology. Hell, people used to be able to buy dynamite at the local hardware store 100 years ago. So to imply that the mere fact that these two were crazy Islamists with bombs somehow makes things any different would be an implication without merit. There is nothing new here.
Hence, by the condescension and contempt in your post for conservatives who see this action for what it was, AN ILLEGAL SEARCH, yours argument descends to an 'ends justifies means' position, the kind of justification used by every tyrant in history. I suggest you read Aristotle's Ethics, as over two thousand years ago he taught what should be known today in every grade school: 'No one selects "an end" unless it is a means to something else. There are no "ends;" there are only means.'