I Nearly Lost It On FaceBook.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
30,015
Reaction score
17,621
Location
Collinsville
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.

So let me see if I have this correct. The residents of Watertown were under immediate threat, which necessitated pointing lethal weapons in their faces by the police? How exactly did that (not to mention conducting pat downs on them without RS or PC) make them "safer"? :scratch:
 

Sparky2

Marksman
Special Hen
Joined
Nov 21, 2010
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
Location
Stillwater
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.


You voted for change didn't you?

LOL... I kid... I kid. No sense in a personal offensive remark like that.

I just don't get your train of thought at all. As said above, How does a judge overpower the 4th?

What part of this isn't OK to you (since you acknowledged that a lawsuit may be prudent)?

Will you argue that those people (atleast some) weren't forced out of their homes at gunpoint?

Will you then argue that this doesn't mean they had no choice?

Doesn't that mean then, that something had to be wrong? Think about it. With all the definitions of this incident's terms above, where do you not see that probable cause is needed for an individual's rights to be suspended? And if you have no arguments so far.... then where was the probable cause for each individual (since this is after all about an individual's rights)?


They were dead wrong here just as they were in the katrina incident.

We aren't busting in mud huts looking for persons of interest here, but that's where we are headed if this crap is allowed.
 

TwoForFlinching

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
10,517
Reaction score
5,919
Location
Lawton
So a known violent murderer, with a confirmed disregard for life (proven in the wild chase and shoot out) eludes immediate capture in the neighborhood of which they chose to flee to... It's unreasonable to think the suspect is occupying one of the houses? Completely unreasonable? Really?
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
37,209
Location
Edmond
A judge can say the 4th Amendment is null and void?

No but they might be able to grant a broad type search warrant if a tip is called in. You did notice that it was the same house shown in both videos and that no other houses were shown being searched like that.

So let me see if I have this correct. The residents of Watertown were under immediate threat, which necessitated pointing lethal weapons in their faces by the police? How exactly did that (not to mention conducting pat downs on them without RS or PC) make them "safer"? :scratch:

Oh gee, you mean the part were they were treated just like it was a hostage situation? I am sure you have all seen video of them securing each person until they are sure they are not one of the bad guys. What do they do, they keep them covered and give them a quick pat down before sending them off to a safe area. JUST LIKE IN THE VIDEOS!!!!

Did you notice that the women were not patted down and that there were not even any female officers? Why? Because the suspect being looked for was a male.
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
37,209
Location
Edmond
So a known violent murderer, with a confirmed disregard for life (proven in the wild chase and shoot out) eludes immediate capture in the neighborhood of which they chose to flee to... It's unreasonable to think the suspect is occupying one of the houses? Completely unreasonable? Really?

The only thing you missed was how many tips were called in that the police had to check out. The cops probably got hundreds.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2007
Messages
30,015
Reaction score
17,621
Location
Collinsville
No but they might be able to grant a broad type search warrant if a tip is called in. You did notice that it was the same house shown in both videos and that no other houses were shown being searched like that.

Oh gee, you mean the part were they were treated just like it was a hostage situation? I am sure you have all seen video of them securing each person until they are sure they are not one of the bad guys. What do they do, they keep them covered and give them a quick pat down before sending them off to a safe area. JUST LIKE IN THE VIDEOS!!!!

Did you notice that the women were not patted down and that there were not even any female officers? Why? Because the suspect being looked for was a male.

No problem. Just remind me though, how many of them were in fact hostages? How many of them were at the scene of an active shooter? How many of them were in ANY danger BEFORE a loaded gun was stuck in their face by a LEO? See, I'm trying to wrap my mind around how people who were secure in their homes were in more danger, but were suddenly in less danger with a loaded gun pointed at them as they were extracted from their homes under threat of force? So far, you haven't helped me with that equation. Not...one...bit. :(
 

TwoForFlinching

Sharpshooter
Special Hen
Joined
Aug 14, 2012
Messages
10,517
Reaction score
5,919
Location
Lawton
Hindsight always being 20/20... What if this turrible unjustification of these fourth amendment rights, this wanted loser was found in the third house... What would the reaction be?
 

RickN

Eye Bleach Salesman
Supporting Member
Special Hen Supporter
Joined
Sep 7, 2009
Messages
26,557
Reaction score
37,209
Location
Edmond
No problem. Just remind me though, how many of them were in fact hostages? How many of them were at the scene of an active shooter? How many of them were in ANY danger BEFORE a loaded gun was stuck in their face by a LEO? See, I'm trying to wrap my mind around how people who were secure in their homes were in more danger, but were suddenly in less danger with a loaded gun pointed at them as they were extracted from their homes under threat of force? So far, you haven't helped me with that equation. Not...one...bit. :(

I am not sure you can wrap your mind around it because you seem to be avoiding looking at anything but the worst. Do you know if someone called in a tip or if there was maybe a reason the cops thought he might be in there? Do you know if every house was searched like that or was it only selected houses? If so how where they selected? By tips maybe? If there was a tip, should the cops have ignored it?

And I am not sure there is any help for you. :D :D :D
 

Latest posts

Top Bottom