Crossing a line? Unreasonable search?

[Texan2]

He's referring to when law enforcement ripped people from their homes without warrant or consent after the bombing.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

"Ripped form their homes..." LOL.

Hilarious how every topic, from "how do I field strip my Glock" to "is my CHL recognized in Zambia?" ends up with a string of posts screaming about how the government is stripping us of our rights...and ultimately a Boston reference.

Exactly how many complaints were filed against the Boston Police regarding the incidents mentioned? How many residents were happy and thankful? How many of you were there to see what actually was going on? How many of those who scream the loudest rarely peel away from the computer and get most of their information about what goes on from ridiculously hollow news stories?

If the people who live in Boston are ok with how THEIR police operrate, why are you so outraged?

(I believe I know the answer to all of the above questions.)

 

[caleb7]

"Ripped form their homes..." LOL.

Hilarious how every topic, from "how do I field strip my Glock" to "is my CHL recognized in Zambia?" ends up with a string of posts screaming about how the government is stripping us of our rights...and ultimately a Boston reference.

Exactly how many complaints were filed against the Boston Police regarding the incidents mentioned? How many residents were happy and thankful? How many of you were there to see what actually was going on? How many of those who scream the loudest rarely peel away from the computer and get most of their information about what goes on from ridiculously hollow news stories?

If the people who live in Boston are ok with how THEIR police operrate, why are you so outraged?

(I believe I know the answer to all of the above questions.)

I feel like you're just trying to debate semantics to accuse me of illogical emotivism. Ripped, pulled, forcibly removed, whatever term you would prefer, its what happened. Are you denying that? If not, what's your point?

How hollow is amateur video feed, by the way?

http://www.storyleak.com/video-shows-home-searches-by-boston-police-were-not-voluntary/

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

 

[txinvestigator]

I suppose the BPD should have just allowed those terrorists to operate.

 

[Texan2]

My point is that they had a procedure which included speaking to homeowners about what they were doing. In a city with low gun ownership and a different mentality than we have here in Texas they allow officers to conduct searches.

Your video proves absolutely zero...nothing...nada. And did these people go file a complaint? A lawsuit? How many lawsuits HAVE been filed against BPD for these searches? IF there were legit concerns about people rights being violated wouldn't lawyers would be lined up.

I have learned that those who scream loudest about constitutional violations typically know the least about the Constitution.

 

[Texan2]

I suppose the BPD should have just allowed those terrorists to operate.

They are supposed to carry a revolver around and wave at people. The "Andy Griffith Show" approach is the best way to deal with terrorists and fighting cartels and hard core criminals....everybody knows that.

 

[caleb7]

My point is that they had a procedure which included speaking to homeowners about what they were doing. In a city with low gun ownership and a different mentality than we have here in Texas they allow officers to conduct searches.

Your video proves absolutely zero...nothing...nada. And did these people go file a complaint? A lawsuit? How many lawsuits HAVE been filed against BPD for these searches? IF there were legit concerns about people rights being violated wouldn't lawyers would be lined up.

I have learned that those who scream loudest about constitutional violations typically know the least about the Constitution.

My video proves exactly what I need it to prove, which was the only point I made, that people were forcibly removed from their home. You put words in my mouth that were not there because you made an assumption from the wording of my OP different my actual intentions for writing it. All I did was clarify someone else's point. It was not in my desire to throw gasoline on a fire. Will changing the wording of my OP appease you?

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I suppose the BPD should have just allowed those terrorists to operate.

It's not like they even caught him during the pseudo martial law. It wasn't till right after it was rescinded that the guy went to smoke and saw tsarnaev in his boat.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Texan2]

My video proves exactly what I need it to prove, which was the only point I made, that people were forcibly removed from their home. You put words in my mouth that were not there because you made an assumption from the wording of my OP different my actual intentions for writing it. All I did was clarify someone else's point. It was not in my desire to throw gasoline on a fire. Will changing the wording of my OP appease you?

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

I watched the video....i can see several other possibilities other than your assumptions. I guess people see what they want to see. Since we can't hear the entire conversation or the context thereof, i can't draw a conclusion.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[caleb7]

I watched the video....i can see several other possibilities other than your assumptions. I guess people see what they want to see. Since we can't hear the entire conversation or the context thereof, i can't draw a conclusion.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

I agree that its not a complete account, but from the eyewitness account that the video does provide, would any one here come to the conclusion that in the event that any of those individuals chose not to comply, would the police have given them a choice? I'm not debating whether such search tactics were necessary/justifiable or not, but all that is necessary for it to be defined as forceful removal is for the homeowners to have no viable option but to consent to the search.

"Speak softly and carry a big stick!" ~ Theodore Roosevelt

 

[M. Sage]

I really try to support the police in general....they are in a customer service job where nearly all customers are scumbags and not at all friendly, and I feel bad for the cops 98% of the time. I've got a lot of friends that wear the badge every day, and they really do try to live up to the 'protect and serve' motto.

But this really REALLY pisses me off, and folks like that are what give law enforcement in general a bad name.

They ought to be fired, fined, stripped of all their certifications, and barred from working in any official capacity beyond head burger flipper, IMO.

Nearly all taxpayers are scumbags?

 

[Texan2]

Nearly all taxpayers are scumbags?

No, but in most areas the police deal with the non-taxpayong scumbags more than anyone else.
Of course there are also the trolls that are trying to coerce the police into doing something wrong so they can get their 15 minutes of fame on the internet.
They deal with those on occasion too.

 

[M. Sage]

My point is, the taxpayers are the customers.

And coerce? Really?

• v. To force to act or think in a certain way by use of pressure, threats, or intimidation; compel.
• v. To dominate, restrain, or control forcibly: coerced the strikers into compliance. See Synonyms at force.
• v. To bring about by force or threat: efforts to coerce agreement.

 

[Younggun]

No, but in most areas the police deal with the non-taxpayong scumbags more than anyone else.
Of course there are also the trolls that are trying to coerce the police into doing something wrong so they can get their 15 minutes of fame on the internet.
They deal with those on occasion too.

Hmmm, from the other side and a different perspective.

The "customers" are not the ones you are arresting. They are the ones who called in or the driver trying to avoid the drunken scumbag you just pulled over.


This argument is stupid though. We all know what the original comment meant. Cops deal with scumbags on a regular basis.

 

[M. Sage]

I understand that cops deal with a lot of criminals. But if someone lets that affect their attitude toward the general public in general, they might want to think about another line of work.

That traffic cop in SD who's had zero complaints and seems to have a genuinely good attitude every day is a perfect example of doing it right. Funny that all he's done is apply the golden rule.

 

[Texan2]

My point is, the taxpayers are the customers.

And coerce? Really?

I think so.

Those who strap on a camera and go out every day or week to try to create a confrontation using whatever means they can. Pathetic existence in my opinion.

But I agree that all taxpayers are "customers" and thankfully the vast majority of police/citizen encounters are pleasant.
(I am referring to the non-criminal, law abiding folk who just call or make contact with police for incidental reasons.)

 

[Texan2]

I understand that cops deal with a lot of criminals. But if someone lets that affect their attitude toward the general public in general, they might want to think about another line of work.

While there are those that don't belong in the LE field, psychologists and those in the mental health filed will tell you that we are all products of our experiences. To think that dealing with the lowest of the low in our society isnt going to effect ones outlook is absurd. Being able to control emotions though is key to a long career.

 

[gcmj45acp]

I suppose the BPD should have just allowed those terrorists to operate.

BPD is generally operating at an international point of entry to the county where the courts have established there is no reasonable expectation of privacy such as an airport servicing international flights or the border (they don't call it border patrol for nothing). At an international POE, we're talking about the sovereignty of a country and its right to inspect anything coming into the country before allowing entry. So that's a limited and reasonable exemption which all I was asking you to provide to expand on your original point. I really am not trying to an ass; again, I'm simply trying to learn and so that I and others have a better understanding of their rights. As I mentioned, I would see it as reasonable if you actually saw a suspect stuffing something into a cavity but, it hasn't been mentioned whether any of the officers in these cases saw such a thing.

 

[Texan2]

fyi. BPD=Boston Police Department

 

[M. Sage]

I think so.

You think that the people with cameras are forcing officers react the way they sometimes do in those videos?

Wow. That's just...

 

[Dredge]

Check the video again...The ladies in the first incident specifically complain about the penetration after it occurs. The ladies in the second video are told that is exactly what will happen. Is it as deep as what a gynecologist or proctologist might go? No but, that doesn't make it any less invasive to the individual. And I agree, it's quite gross to start at the rear and then move to the front, let alone use the same gloves from one suspect to another. All that said, TXINVESTIGATOR said there are exceptions that would make this reasonable. So, I'd like to hear him further explain that based on his experience as a cop.

I know full cavity searches have and do occur with people who were already under arrest. I guess it might be reasonable if you caught someone in the act of inserting evidence into their own body cavity before an arrest. However, when I posed that question to officers I know working in narcotics, their answer was to arrest the suspect, THEN have a medical professional retrieve said evidence for you. As one put it, most cops aren't trained to safely retrieve anything from inside another person's body so there is little reason to expose the officer or suspect to unnecessary health risks of what appears to be a blind cavity search. IIRC, the suit filed by one of the ladies in the first video mentioned some sort of injury induced by the cavity search itself.

I think without having the ladies pants and undergarments removed we have no way of knowing exactly how deep the Trooper went. I could hear no audio from the female Trooper or either lady in the video posted (both video's posted are of the same event). The audio was from the male Trooper who was searching the vehicle as it was his mic that was linked to his vehicle.
I can tell that there is conversation and animation with hands/arms but that is no indication of what was actually stated. Then again, my ears only pick up about 60% of whatever is considered "normal".
Regardless....I don't think it's a good idea, sanitary or appropriate to search like that at roadside in full public view.