Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams

[Quantum Windbag]

Not per the exigent circumstances exception, which was clearly in play during the search; there’s no way to reasonably expect law enforcement to obtain a warrant under such conditions.

Moreover, law enforcement wasn’t requesting to enter the home to search for incriminating evidence against the homeowner, but to search for the suspect.

Last, any property owner who believes his civil liberties were violated is free to file suit in court.

Exigent Circumstances applys only when the police KNOW there is someone in danger in the building. Nice try, but get it right.

WRONG. They only need reasonable belief. They dont need 100% proof. You are 100% wrong on that. I've taken my argument to criminal court in real cases with reasonable belief as the reason for entering a home without a warrant for locating a suspect.

They KNEW he was in that general area. They KNEW he had.......a fucking BOMB. Right? Weapons of Mass Destruction? The most wanted terrorist in the WORLD at the time, right? And you want them to hit the "pause" button, and type up about 1,000 search warrants, which would take days?

You just showed why the REAL MEN carry guns and do the dirty work of the world. While men like you talk about it, watch it on TV, then talk shit about what they shoulda done and all the mistakes they made. While deep down, you know the girl sitting next to you knows you aren't half the man that those men on TV are, or those men fighting overseas are.

Let us assume you are correct that they only need reasonable belief, even thought that is categorically wrong. What, exactly, gave them a reasonable belief that anyone in that house was in imminent danger? Explain it, in detail, and stop pretending that your ability to snow internet posters who want to agree with you amounts to actual expertise.

By the way, they did not know he was in the area. That can easily be proven by the irrefutable fact that he was ultimately found outside the area they were searching.

 

[EricTheMan]

The analogy is that you can sue for anything. I don't understand what bringing Ted Nugent into this conversation has to do with anything.

You can sue for anything, but you won't win a judgement. A judgement is based on actual damages, not your stained britches.

Not sure how Ted Nugent got into this conversation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

WRONG. They only need reasonable belief. They dont need 100% proof. You are 100% wrong on that. I've taken my argument to criminal court in real cases with reasonable belief as the reason for entering a home without a warrant for locating a suspect.

They KNEW he was in that general area. They KNEW he had.......a fucking BOMB. Right? Weapons of Mass Destruction? The most wanted terrorist in the WORLD at the time, right? And you want them to hit the "pause" button, and type up about 1,000 search warrants, which would take days?

You just showed why the REAL MEN carry guns and do the dirty work of the world. While men like you talk about it, watch it on TV, then talk shit about what they shoulda done and all the mistakes they made. While deep down, you know the girl sitting next to you knows you aren't half the man that those men on TV are, or those men fighting overseas are.

Reasonable belief eh?

Did they have reasonable belief that ONE perp was in EVERY house in a 20 block radius?

Moron

Interesting.
So the alternative was to mill around in the street, throw their hands in the air, scratch their arses and go "Oh well" and bugger off home?

No, the alternative was to ask everyone nicely if they could look through their house, explaining that they had the people could say no, and attempt to attain a warrant for any house that refused to let them in. It isn't like the police don't have the ability to wake a judge up and get a telephone warrant.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Exigent Circumstances applys only when the police KNOW there is someone in danger in the building. Nice try, but get it right.

WRONG. They only need reasonable belief. They dont need 100% proof. You are 100% wrong on that. I've taken my argument to criminal court in real cases with reasonable belief as the reason for entering a home without a warrant for locating a suspect.

They KNEW he was in that general area. They KNEW he had.......a fucking BOMB. Right? Weapons of Mass Destruction? The most wanted terrorist in the WORLD at the time, right? And you want them to hit the "pause" button, and type up about 1,000 search warrants, which would take days?

You just showed why the REAL MEN carry guns and do the dirty work of the world. While men like you talk about it, watch it on TV, then talk shit about what they shoulda done and all the mistakes they made. While deep down, you know the girl sitting next to you knows you aren't half the man that those men on TV are, or those men fighting overseas are.

That is crossing the line. You have every right to disagree, even as fervently as you have done, but it is not right to bring his family into it. That was a low blow if I ever did see one. This is indeed a touchy subject, but we must all check our emotions at the door.

Personally I agree that people's constitutional rights still matter in this circumstance, but then again, how were they to apprehend him? You sit there typing up thousands of warrants, while the terrorist re-assimilates? Time was of the essence! Should we have left him to run free causing fear and panic thought Boston and outlying areas? But once again, how were we supposed to catch him?

The Emergency Exception

Cops are allowed to invoke this clause when they fear that their safety, or the safety of the public may be in real or imminent danger. If you have an armed terrorist running around a residential neighborhood, do you really want to sit there and take the time to type up a warrant for each and every citizen of Watertown?

In exigent circumstances, or emergency situations, police can conduct warrantless searches to protect public safety. This exception to the Fourth Amendment’s probable cause requirement normally addresses situations of “hot pursuit,” in which an escaping suspect is tracked to a private home. But it might also apply to the events unfolding in Boston if further harm or injury might be supposed to occur in the time it takes to secure a warrant. A bomber believed to be armed and planning more violence would almost certainly meet such prerequisites.

Boston bomber manhunt: Is the Watertown door-to-door search by police for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev legal? - Slate Magazine

Exigent circumstances apply to public safety, not just to those who reside in one building or another. Furthermore, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in United States v. Rengifo indicated that “exigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm.” So what the cops did was within the bounds of the law. There should be no more discussion on it. I side with the cops here.

See U.S. v Rengifo here: U.S. v. RENGIFO*-*Heard July 27, 1988. Click page 4.

It might apply, if the judges ignore all the facts on the ground, especially the fact that the police had a perimeter set up to prevent the suspect from escaping, had illegally ordered everyone in the area to shelter in place, thus putting every single one of them into police custody, and had multiple judges on call to get a warrant from in a very short period of time.

 

[BallsBrunswick]

Yes, they would.

Then I'm suing the fuck out of them and buying an island to start my own country with the money.

You would be poorer for it because you would have wasted all the money you spent on a lawsuit that you would surely (and quickly) lose. That is, if you could find a lawyer dumb enough to even take on such a foolish case.

You realize we're arguing over the government encroaching my property with no legal authority after a nuclear bomb went off on my city? Clearly in this scenario anything is possible. And I assure you, I have the time, money and an awesome attorney to fight something like this... you know assuming all of that isn't vaporized in the initial mushroom cloud.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So is there any proof of whether the cops asked homeowners' permission before barging into houses? I've seen both things said on the internet. I'm fully prepared to get enraged about this but I want to have all the information before doing so.

If the police asked for permission, and received it, then no one has a gripe. If they ask, and are told to get a warrant, and search anyway, they are breaking the law, and subject to any legal means to prevent them from entering the house, including armed resistance.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you not understand how that attitude can be counterproductive in terms of providing public safety?

We're talking about a terrorist, not someone engaged in ordinary criminal activity. Catching him as quickly as possible is in the best interest in every citizen around the country.

I understand that but what does law enforcement entering people's houses have to do with this. Do terrorists go house to house when they are on the run?

This guy was found in the backyard of a private house.

And this was after they carjacked a private vehicle.

I would agree that having private citizens at gun point is much to much.

He was found outside the area they were searching, is there a reason you didn't mention that?

 

[buckeye45_73]

I just think it's funny because it happend in Boston.....govt needs more power eh Southies?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Not under those circumstances at that moment they don't.

Care to cite the exception to the 4th Amendment that is in the Constitution?

I said it that day and I will say it again.

If anyone entered a house without a warrant for that house or without the permission of the owner/resident, they broke the law and should be prosecuted.

Shake your fists and stomp your feet all you want, but it there is a legitimate expectation of imminent danger, the officer on scene does NOT have to wait for a search warrant. A judge may later need to rule on it, but any evidence obtained under those circumstances is almost certain to be admitted in court. Emote all you want, but that's reality - and you want it that way.

Fine, explain how that applies given the fact they they had no information that the suspect was hiding in any particular house in the area. While you are doing it you should also remember that the guy was actually found outside the area they were searching, which proves they did not know where he was.

 

[konradv]

Alex Jones is a fucking nut and so are his fans. Fans like this "freewill". You are a dumb ass.

If freewill is such a dumb ass, why does freewill have twice the rep than you do with a fraction of the amount of posts you do? It seems other posters view you as the dumb ass.

Some of us don't play the rep game. There are plenty of dumbasses here with lots of rep. Why? Because they keep repping each other in a CON circle jerk. When someone has few posts with lots of rep in a short time, it's obvious what's going on.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

It's fascinating to watch the Alex Jones crowd's ongoing relentless determination to get a foothold on this message board.

They really are a drag on one's desperate attempt to retain some degree of faith in the intelligence and common sense of one's fellow man.

The video is on YouTube, when did Jones buy Google?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I understand that but what does law enforcement entering people's houses have to do with this. Do terrorists go house to house when they are on the run?

This guy was found in the backyard of a private house.

And this was after they carjacked a private vehicle.

I would agree that having private citizens at gun point is much to much.

He was found outside the area they were searching, is there a reason you didn't mention that?

And, of course, he didn't mention that it wasn't the police that found him but a citizen that called it in.

 

[kaz]

Someone posted yesterday about the police forcing people out of their homes, well here is the proof they were right? BTW as we found out the second bomber was outside the parameter.

» Shocking Footage: Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams Alex Jones' Infowars: There's a war on for your mind!

I'm not clear if you're being serious or tongue in cheek or what. But police were in hot pursuit of someone who murdered and maimed many people. Even as a libertarian I don't see how this is an issue. If they found drugs or something on a homeowner based on the search and tried to use it against them, then I'd toss the case as a warrantless search. But in actual pursuit of the subject and they were ordered out as part of that pursuit? I'm not sure what the issue is exactly. They should have gotten 5,000 individual warrants for every home in the section of the city? That would just be protecting someone who was murdering people. The Constitution wasn't a death pact.

That is all well and good only if they saw the subject run into the house.
There was no 'actual pursuit" of the subject, and the cops had no idea where the subject was

So if that's the case, it's valid to pursue the matter later to understand their justification. But at the time, you do what the cops tell you. They were sweeping areas, no idea why they chose that house. But they weren't going to every door, so to conclude it wasn't under the circumstances isn't justified by the evidence presented either.

 

[bodecea]

I would have said..."Thank you sir...you are correct...you do not have to cooperate with the police who are looking for a terrorist bomber....have a nice day....we will not bother you again......ever."

 

[bendog]

I'm not sure why there's a fourth amendment issue here. The cops did not conduct searches to find evidence to ARREST THE HOMEOWNERS. There's never been a question the cops cannot order us from our homes if there's a dangerous situation, like a gas leak or impending flood, that requires them to act to protect the general public.

There just was not any seach and seizure.

 

[Truthmatters]

how do these fools get past the fact taht the Citizens stood in the streets and appluaded the very men these idiots are trying to cast as evil?


there is film of it you fools

 

[Truthmatters]

Boston latest: Families of blast victims applaud officers in bittersweet reaction to arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev | Mail Online

 

[BallsBrunswick]

how do these fools get past the fact taht the Citizens stood in the streets and appluaded the very men these idiots are trying to cast as evil?


there is film of it you fools

You believe everything you see on TV eh?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Yes, the citizens of the community were loving this raw show of authoritarianism. After all, this is MA.

 

[Truthmatters]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLtAJ4nDoIw]Boston Celebrates - Law Enforcement Heroes - YouTube[/ame]