For all you guys know, a judge could have signed off on the methods they used.
A judge can say the 4th Amendment is null and void?
For all you guys know, a judge could have signed off on the methods they used.
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.
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.
A judge can say the 4th Amendment is null and void?
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"?
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?
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.
Enter your email address to join: