I Nearly Lost It On FaceBook.

[SlammerG_89]

Care to explain how it's constitutionally kosher? I promise that I'm not one of those sovereign citizen types. Many of my friends are current and former LEO from multiple agencies all the way up to federal level. I really am on their side but I can't see how what I saw and heard described by multiple accounts in the video I posted is kosher.

Making assumptions of what I think makes you look like the first 3 letters of the word.

 

[Glocktogo]

Exigent Circumstances

Exigent means emergency, which means under life saving circumstances. Example: An elderly person in a wheel chair is trapped inside a burning apartment. Because lives are at stake, an officer can forcibly enter the apartment without a search warrant to rescue the person. The key: time and public need. The officer doesn t have time to get a warrant, and there s an immediate risk of harm to the public that requires immediate official action.

Another example: a situation in which public safety is paramount. If officers are being shot at, they may have to conduct a search of premises or a building without a search warrant because both the officers and the public are in imminent danger. Likewise, if an officer has probable cause to believe evidence is going to be destroyed, or if an officer is in hot pursuit of an escaped felon who runs into a house, a warrant isn t required. In Mincey v. Arizona (1978)2, the Supreme Court ruled officers don t have to delay a search if doing so endangers their lives or others.

So what part of your long post does the described scenario fit? Because from what I read (and know), none of what you posted is relevant to the situation at hand. If I'm in my home and there's a killer on the loose in my area, I'm going to be armed and I'm going to be in charge of my home. If the killer breaks in, either he's dead or I am. When the police come knocking with M4's pointed in on my door, I ain't coming to it. I'll call 911 and explain that I do not consent to a search, because no search is necessary. If they force entry, I'll comply with their commands, but you can bet your ass that I'll be filing suit ASAP. We might be able to work it out before it goes to court, but I'm still working the system until it's done.

Most of what they did in this situation is completely unnecessary and endangered the public. It absolutely creates fear to have multiple weapons pointed at you when no threat is present. The pat downs on the sidewalk were unnecessary. After seeing this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B_Gb6i5DF9k you cannot deny that law enforcement terrorized the public.

You folks are really paranoid. Lets put it this way and maybe you will understand. Waco was wrong because while the people there were nutjobs, they were not an immediate threat to anyone. The government coming to your home and searching without a warrant is wrong no matter how out there you guys sound because you are not an immediate threat to anyone except yourselves. Now if you start setting off bombs and shooting people you go from being paranoid to being a threat to innocents, then they can and should search for you.

And no matter how you guys try to spin it, there is a big difference between being a dissident and a terrorist, and his being 19 years old changes nothing. I know some very well trained 19 year olds in the military.

So what you're saying is that all the residents of Watertown were an immediate threat, and using deadly force against them was justified? Because the police pointed their lethal weapons at MANY residents in their search, but never pointed their weapons at the terrorist until he was spotted by a resident. That's the point you don't get. I don't deserve to have a real deal, loaded assault weapon pointed at me in my own home, while complying with an order to remain in my home! I present NO threat to anyone who doesn't enter my home by force, and that includes police! They unnecessarily endangered many innocent citizens by the method they used. What would've happened if they accidentally killed an innocent citizen during these high risk raids? "Oops, we're sorry, but it's justified."???

I am guessing no one read what CODE 3 posted.

I did and none of it applied in this situation. You can't claim "hot pursuit" to justify searching every home in a town at gunpoint. Perhaps we need to carve out a "lukewarm pursuit" exemption to the 4th Amendment?

I think the question people are trying to raise is there is a big difference between surrendering your rights and having your rights taken. I guarantee you 99% of the people would surrender their 4th amendment rights in the Boston situation with or without a gun pointed in their face. I would be in that 99% myself. But the issue at hand is that many of the videos listed in this thread, don't show people being asked to surrender their rights, they are videos of their rights being taken. Law's are written to help avoid situational ethics.

This might be one of the greatest examples of situational ethics you will ever find.

The reality is regardless of how you "feel" about a constitutional right, its either in effect or it's being ignored. There is no half on, or half off.

Best post in this thread. Kudos to you sir!

To each their own

Umm...No. That would mean I could violate your rights, just because I felt like it. The government in this case decided that their lives were worth more than the lives of the Watertown residents, and they used the safety of the residents as their excuse. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, regardless of the "specialness" of the circumstances. Either they rise to the level of exigency, or they do not. Even under exigent circumstances, rules still apply. It's not a blank check to do whatever you please.

Exactly they were just stumbling form house to house. They had no reason to do this. And what proves it is that they didn't even find them. Turns out thousands of citizens active and looking out were better than thousands of LEOs violating rights.

Exactly. Dozens, if not hundreds of high risk raids failed to produce the suspect.

You mean 1 citizen.

Yes. One citizen did what hundreds of heavily armed and armored LEO's couldn't do in the process of violating the rights of Watertown residents. I couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[Glocktogo]

Making assumptions of what I think makes you look like the first 3 letters of the word.

Now you're just being coy and that really does make you look like the first three letters. Don't sit on the fence, choose a side and stick with it. Either what they did was right, or it was wrong. No middle ground on this one.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

No middle ground on this one.

Don't feel too bad... That's the same reason congress can't get anything done either.

 

[RickN]

Paranoid? Nope.... but I have removed my blinders. It's amazing how much more you can see... I highly recommend it.

It sounds like you get it... pretty much. What happened was wrong, and it would appear that you agree: (" The government coming to your home and searching without a warrant is wrong")

(" if you start setting off bombs and shooting people you go from being paranoid to being a threat to innocents, then they can and should search for you")
YES... but within the realm of the constitution and it's loopholes (and the best loophole here is probable cause, which they did not have for each individual home).

What happened happened and no matter how screwed up we may or may not think it may be is irrelevant (can't fix it now).
What is relevant to me is that some screwed up stuff occurred and those people were wronged, and if it could happen to them, it could happen to us.
If this isn't realized and resistance established (through discussion, lawsuits, or otherwise), it could happen here too.
The crazy thing about the constitution is that it's an all or nothing document. One thing protects or affords the other....

If this is what makes me "paranoid" by your standards.... I'll wear that with pride, though I'd use a different word.

I do agree that there should be some lawsuits over the was this was handled but some here are making it sound like the cops went completely off the rails. They did push it to far but it was not martial law without probable cause. Close but not there yet. Some are also trying to make it sound like the guy they were after was not a real threat by calling him a kid or hinting he was a dissident. Wrong again. The guy was a terrorist and as such a real threat to everyone he came in contact with including children.

For those that keep throwing out the dissident word here is a handy, easy to understand guide for you.

Dissident: You can call yourself a dissident if you use non-violent means to protest or work for change. You can also use it if you only use violence to protect yourself when the government comes for you.

Freedom Fighter: You can call yourself a freedom fighter if you target violence against government forces only.

Terrorist: If you mainly target innocent people including women and children, then you are a freaking terrorist no matter what you try to call yourself.

 

[Glocktogo]

Don't feel too bad... That's the same reason congress can't get anything done either.

Considering what the DO get done, perhaps that's not such a bad thing?

 

[Shadowrider]

Making assumptions of what I think makes you look like the first 3 letters of the word.

Well excuuuuuse me! You are the one that said and I quote:

To each their own

You might want to go look in the mirror, you might just see that three letter thing...

 

[Glocktogo]

I do agree that there should be some lawsuits over the was this was handled but some here are making it sound like the cops went completely off the rails. They did push it to far but it was not martial law without probable cause. Close but not there yet. Some are also trying to make it sound like the guy they were after was not a real threat by calling him a kid or hinting he was a dissident. Wrong again. The guy was a terrorist and as such a real threat to everyone he came in contact with including children.

For those that keep throwing out the dissident word here is a handy, easy to understand guide for you.

Dissident: You can call yourself a dissident if you use non-violent means to protest or work for change. You can also use it if you only use violence to protect yourself when the government comes for you.

Freedom Fighter: You can call yourself a freedom fighter if you target violence against government forces only.

Terrorist: If you mainly target innocent people including women and children, then you are a freaking terrorist no matter what you try to call yourself.

Dude was a stone cold killer, no arguments there. He deserved worse than he got. That still doesn't justify treating every citizen in town like they were him.

 

[RickN]

So what you're saying is that all the residents of Watertown were an immediate threat, and using deadly force against them was justified? Because the police pointed their lethal weapons at MANY residents in their search, but never pointed their weapons at the terrorist until he was spotted by a resident. That's the point you don't get. I don't deserve to have a real deal, loaded assault weapon pointed at me in my own home, while complying with an order to remain in my home! I present NO threat to anyone who doesn't enter my home by force, and that includes police! They unnecessarily endangered many innocent citizens by the method they used. What would've happened if they accidentally killed an innocent citizen during these high risk raids? "Oops, we're sorry, but it's justified."???

No I am saying that the residents of Watertown were under immediate threat. The terrorist could have forced his way into any of those homes and been holding the people hostage at gun point or with a bomb. The police had no way of knowing, no way of getting a warrant for a specific home since they did not know where he was, and probable did not know what he looked like for sure.

For all you guys know, a judge could have signed off on the methods they used.

 

[TwoForFlinching]

Dude was a stone cold killer, no arguments there. He deserved worse than he got. That still doesn't justify treating every citizen in town like they were him.

What is the method for detecting friend from foe?