Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Police perform house-to-house raids in Watertown MA ripping innocent families from their homes
YouTube ^ | Apr 20, 2013

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 ...


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; US: Massachusetts
KEYWORDS: banglist; donutwatch; guncontrol; housesearches; leo; manhunt; secondamendment; tsarnaev; watertown; watertownfamilies
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 last
To: Altariel

How would you recommend they should have conducted their ongoing search?


161 posted on 05/01/2013 11:49:16 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie; Travis McGee

By operating under the strict bounds of the Constitution.


162 posted on 05/01/2013 2:39:32 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
What is the problem with cautiously clearing houses with overwhelming force?

In any city in this country, there are currently on the loose murderers who have brutally attacked others, who have left a trail of destruction in their wake. Some are overrun by gangs.

So in any city, the police could use the same argument you are making to go door-to-door through every neighborhood, looking for any one of these currently at-large killers.

Unless the police had some indication that the perpetrator had entered one of those houses, without a warrant they had no business clearing the houses with force, overwhelming or not. They could knock, and politely ask if they could look around. If they were told no, they had to move on unless they had a clear indication that there was an imminent danger within the house.

In the end, this particular terrorist hadn't even killed as many people as the DC Sniper.

But we have seen that police love to use excessive force when one of their own is killed. Which is fine if they use it on the murderer, but not when they take it out on innocent civilians.

Look at what happened in California -- cops shooting up cars with innocent people in them. "But there was a brutal killer on the loose". Yep, always is, always will be.

And yes, if you lock everybody in their houses, and then send a platoon of military folks to roust everybody out of their houses and search them, one at a time, you will eventually find every known suspect that is hiding in a city. You could well round up thousands of miscreants, and even stop some murders, rapes, and brutal beatings in the process.

But that's not how our country works. We'd rather let some people die so we can be left a peace in our own homes, and be free to leave them whenever we want. That is why it is written in the constitution. We aren't the safest country. But we should be the freest.

163 posted on 05/01/2013 8:59:59 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: Altariel

The Constitution is a suicide pact, then?


164 posted on 05/01/2013 9:16:38 PM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie; Travis McGee

Since you used that socialist argument, it’s clear you are rather willing to don the chains of slavery in exchange for “security”.

Seems to me Benjamin Franklin had something to say about that.

Don’t worry, The State will take care of you, from cradle to grave, now.

Careful, you wouldn’t want your Masters to know where you post.


165 posted on 05/01/2013 9:20:56 PM PDT by Altariel ("Curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: MacMattico

>> “ But what was the alternative?” <<

.
Do you really need it spelled out?


166 posted on 05/01/2013 9:26:14 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: brent13a; Jim Robinson

>> “Agreed. The alarmists on FreeRepublic don’t ever have an answer for this question though.” <<

.
Spoken like the true statist brown shirt shill that you are.

The answer is known by all, and need not be spelled out.

You need the zot for trying to goad anyone into making such a post.


167 posted on 05/01/2013 9:30:43 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Kartographer; brent13a

>> “Are you saying that all those LEO agencies, with all their training, equipment, experience and so forth at their disposal the best they could come up with was a plan that required for them to break from their primary duty that they are swore to that is to protect and uphold the Constitution of the United States?” <<

.
Check brent13a’s posting history and you will find that he thinks this is really cool.

We have a bunch of these lurking among us.


168 posted on 05/01/2013 9:38:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Freepers: Not as smart as I'd hoped they'd be)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Altariel; The_Media_never_lie; Travis McGee; editor-surveyor; Old Sarge; Jim Robinson; ...

Is asking that they preform their duties while maintaining their fidelity to their first and primary oath to defend and protect the Constitution of the United States to much to ask. Yes many are the times following the letter and the spirit of the Constitution makes a LEO’s job harder and sometimes even more dangerous, but they know that going in. The problem start when they start bending and twisting it. It usually always starts for the ‘good’reasons, but once it starts it never ends there.

Where does this end?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3013260/posts


169 posted on 05/01/2013 9:54:34 PM PDT by Kartographer ("We mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
The Constitution is a suicide pact, then?

The Constitution is more than a set of slogans like yours There have to be really good reasons to set aside any amendments and the courts have come up with a decent set (e.g. emergencies, hot pursuit, evidence in plain site, a hunch by a cop). Note that all of the exceptions are almost always applied to specific houses. The cops cannot say they "have a hunch" about 20 blocks, nor even about 2 houses. A hunch about a house has to be articulable.

Another option is for all the homeowners to consent to searches without any pressure. That did not appear to be the case here either.

170 posted on 05/02/2013 2:13:49 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 164 | View Replies]

To: palmer

So, if a terrorist goes into a house, holds a family hostage under gunpoint, he can shelter in place until the heat is fine? Is this how it should work? Please educate me.


171 posted on 05/02/2013 3:55:57 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
So, if a terrorist goes into a house, holds a family hostage under gunpoint, he can shelter in place until the heat is fine? Is this how it should work? Please educate me.

Or how about a murderer. Or a bank robber? Or a tax protester? As long as the media issues the panic order on behalf of the government there is just cause to engage in police state actions.

172 posted on 05/02/2013 4:02:39 AM PDT by Sirius Lee (All that is required for evil to advance is for government to do "something")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: Sirius Lee

You need to read about police states before you accuse Boston PD of operating a police state. We already have a police state media, but the Boston area PD is not the problem.


173 posted on 05/02/2013 4:11:48 AM PDT by The_Media_never_lie (Actually, they lie when it suits them! The crooked MS media must be defeated any way it can be done!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie
So, if a terrorist goes into a house, holds a family hostage under gunpoint

That's a simple case, the terrorist is seen going in (hot pursuit), the terrorist is suspected of being in the house (cop sees something suspicious through a window), the terrorist is tracked to the house by a dog, the house has a broken door lock, etc.

There are thousands of court cases where evidence gathering is upheld for such reasons. The ones that get tossed are when the cop cannot articulate a reason for going into a house. A house to house search makes it clear that none of those cases apply and so evidence would be tossed. The cases are about disallowing evidence to protect criminals or overturn their convictions, not about protecting innocent civilians from illegal searches. But that's mainly because organizations like the ACLU are made up of liberals and could care less about individual rights of law abiding citizens (e.g. they don't recognize the second amendment).

174 posted on 05/02/2013 4:12:54 AM PDT by palmer (Obama = Carter + affirmative action)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 171 | View Replies]

To: The_Media_never_lie

Actions speak loudly.


175 posted on 05/02/2013 4:24:28 AM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do ithat when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 101-120121-140141-160161-175 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson