Perimiter in Boston is on LOCKDOWN

[Acera]

If that is shown to be true. I hope those responsible for such a grievous breach of those persons civil rights are prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Sometimes we need to be reminded that this is America and we are not a police state, hopefully once the emotion of the moment dies down, this will be investigated properly.

 

[Libertarian_Longhorn]

For one guy? Sure, they need to find him, but to search houses illegally?

The terrorists won this one, hands down.

On point. A forcible search of my home without a warrant, if those did indeed occur, would have resulted in more casualties.

 

[Texan2]

Necessary? They wound up finding the guy outside the search area. I will say that a search was necessary, but the way they did it wasn't.

And based on your vast amount of LE experience and your in depth knowledge of the unreleased specifics of the situation, you have decided that the FBI, ATFE, Boston PD, and host of other agencies didn't know what they were doing? Interesting assessment.

I've seen a couple of people quoted on Facebook. One very thorough account talks about being "asked" out of the house on a loudspeaker and at gunpoint, then being held (again at gunpoint) while the home was searched.

Well, if its on the internet is must be true and accurate.

Seems to me that to finding jihadists, who up to now have essentially been off the radar, and killing one and capturing the other one in somewhere around 96 hours is a feat to be applauded. But thats just my opinion.

IF I see some legit allegations of civil rights being violated, I will re-consider based on the additional info. Until them I am not going to jump on the anti government badwagon, when they just did a pretty good job taking down two d-bags that killed and maimed a bunch of Americans.

 

[Texan2]

On point. A forcible search of my home without a warrant, if those did indeed occur, would have resulted in more casualties.

With most of those casualties being people who live in your house. Whats with all the internet bravado? The "I will take on the who FBI with my AR/AK....I will die and get my whole family killed instead of winning in court." Lets please not start another inter web tough guy thread.

 

[stdreb27]

yeah it's all over.. i'm thinking you can buy that boat cheap.. course it's not going to float with 30 rounds through it..

Maybe it's a Boston whaler.... Those things will float full of water...

 

[winchster]

With most of those casualties being people who live in your house. Whats with all the internet bravado? The "I will take on the who FBI with my AR/AK....I will die and get my whole family killed instead of winning in court." Lets please not start another inter web tough guy thread.

Of course not, let's just all roll over and pretend we don't have this little thing called the Bill of Rights.

 

[Texan2]

Of course not, let's just all roll over and pretend we don't have this little thing called the Bill of Rights.

Who advocated that? But advocating getting in a shoot out with LE is just....what's the word??? Stupid.

Its called picking your battles. Shooting at SWAT teams= a future measured in seconds or minutes (if you are lucky).
If your rights are violated there is a way to redress that.

It amazes me the number of people who consider themselves sensible people, think that because they have a gun, that it is the "go to" tool to fix a perceived breech of their rights.

 

[M. Sage]

And based on your vast amount of LE experience and your in depth knowledge of the unreleased specifics of the situation, you have decided that the FBI, ATFE, Boston PD, and host of other agencies didn't know what they were doing? Interesting assessment.

Well, if its on the internet is must be true and accurate.

Seems to me that to finding jihadists, who up to now have essentially been off the radar, and killing one and capturing the other one in somewhere around 96 hours is a feat to be applauded. But thats just my opinion.

IF I see some legit allegations of civil rights being violated, I will re-consider based on the additional info. Until them I am not going to jump on the anti government badwagon, when they just did a pretty good job taking down two d-bags that killed and maimed a bunch of Americans.

So are you trying to tell me there was hot pursuit? That's about the only exigency I can find that would even come close to fitting the situation.

...of course, there wasn't hot pursuit. If there's another exigency for searching homes within a very general area, I'm all ears.

 

[winchster]

Who advocated that? But advocating getting in a shoot out with LE is just....what's the word??? Stupid.

Its called picking your battles. Shooting at SWAT teams= a future measured in seconds or minutes (if you are lucky).
If your rights are violated there is a way to redress that.

It amazes me the number of people who consider themselves sensible people, think that because they have a gun, that it is the "go to" tool to fix a perceived breech of their rights.

I wasn't advocating dying in a pile of brass. I took your post as support for warrantless searches.
(Eta: I should have quoted the post prior)

I don't support that idea in any shape or fashion. If you don't have a warrant, come back when you do.

 

[M. Sage]

Ok, I'm still learning about exigency, but I can't find anything out there that would remotely cover this situation. They all talk about a need for immediate action, and all involve a reasonable belief that a suspect will escape, safety is immediately threatened or evidence will be destroyed.

 

[Texan2]

Simply re-read what I wrote:

IF I see some legit allegations of civil rights being violated, I will re-consider based on the additional info.

You are indicating that they needed to search but not search in the manner in which they did. I am just curious, based on your regular criticism of most things police, and based on the fact that you were not in the loop when it comes to the intel that they had today, how you come to the conclusion that they did it wrong?
There was cumulativly 1000's of years of LE experience tracking these guys down, but your exactly zero years of LE experience leads you to say they did it wrong.
I am not advocating violation of anyone's rights, but if you saw the video of the cheering crowds as police left with their suspect, it was obvious that
the public was 100% (or very close to it) behind their actions, and I find it easy to believe they gained consent to the homes being searched.

 

[RstyShcklfrd]

All this talk, and I'm just here like, hey, it's spelled perimeter.

 

[winchster]

Simply re-read what I wrote:



You are indicating that they needed to search but not search in the manner in which they did. I am just curious, based on your regular criticism of most things police, and based on the fact that you were not in the loop when it comes to the intel that they had today, how you come to the conclusion that they did it wrong?
There was cumulativly 1000's of years of LE experience tracking these guys down, but your exactly zero years of LE experience leads you to say they did it wrong.
I am not advocating violation of anyone's rights, but if you saw the video of the cheering crowds as police left with their suspect, it was obvious that
the public was 100% (or very close to it) behind their actions, and I find it easy to believe they gained consent to the homes being searched.

And if they got consent, then those people did what they felt was necessary. Personally I think that consent just further erodes the fundamental rights we hold.

 

[Texan2]

I wasn't advocating dying in a pile of brass. I took your post as support for warrantless searches.
(Eta: I should have quoted the post prior)

I don't support that idea in any shape or fashion. If you don't have a warrant, come back when you do.

I wasn't referencing you in the shootout comment.

On point. A forcible search of my home without a warrant, if those did indeed occur, would have resulted in more casualties.

I was referencing this one.
I don't support warrantless searches unless they fit one of the exceptions to the warrant requirement.

 

[Texan2]

And if they got consent, then those people did what they felt was necessary. Personally I think that consent just further erodes the fundamental rights we hold.

LMAO....I am almost afraid to ask. But hell, I haven't delved in the bizarre yet today.

Please expound on how a CONSENT search erodes your rights. This should be good....

 

[winchster]

Well gee whiz, with what I can find so far

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.


Basically open to the decision making process of the officers on the scene.

 

[winchster]

LMAO....I am almost afraid to ask. But hell, I haven't delved in the bizarre yet today.

Please expound on how a CONSENT search erodes your rights. This should be good....

Consenting to a warrantless search just makes it seem "ok". The more something seems "normal" and "ok", the more "fringe" it becomes when the right is exercised.

Example,
Once upon a time, nobody would think twice about a man walking down the road with a rifle. Today, that right has devolved into frantic mwag calls to 911.
(This is not intended to broach the subject of LEO response, just the general public response to said scenario)

Make sense?

 

[Texan2]

Not even a little bit.

 

[M. Sage]

Simply re-read what I wrote:



You are indicating that they needed to search but not search in the manner in which they did.

Only if they searched without consent, which I feel is a sure bet. I ask again, if someone is pointing a loaded gun at your face, are they really asking?

"We need to search your house." Well, ****... what am I going to do?

I am just curious, based on your regular criticism of most things police, and based on the fact that you were not in the loop when it comes to the intel that they had today, how you come to the conclusion that they did it wrong?
There was cumulativly 1000's of years of LE experience tracking these guys down, but your exactly zero years of LE experience leads you to say they did it wrong.

Two problems with this part. One is that it assumes you need LE experience to understand and/or question/criticize. I'm sorry, but that's not how it works. Not until it's not our money paying salaries. The other is that there could be information that would add up to exigency, and I have a really hard time seeing anything that would justify a net wider than a single building based on what I've been reading.

I am not advocating violation of anyone's rights, but if you saw the video of the cheering crowds as police left with their suspect, it was obvious that the public was 100% (or very close to it) behind their actions, and I find it easy to believe they gained consent to the homes being searched.

The democracy/mob rule argument fails on its face. I'm sure they had consent for most, but if one person refused or was bullied into complying - once again, if someone points a loaded gun at your face and says, "do you mind if...?", you are not being asked - then what was done was wrong.

 

[Texan2]

And Sage, if that is shown to have happened it should be addressed.

As to your former point, you don't have to have LE experience to question, but to say they are doing it wrong when you have zero training or experience doing what they do seems a bit...overzealous on your part. Your ability to question/critique has nothing to do with whether you do/do not pay their salary. Not sure how you injected that or why.

I didn't make a mob rule arguement. I said based on the temperment of the people that were in front of the cameras (which I think is representative of the citizenry of the area) they did not appear to be that of an oppressed, violated people. I suppose time will tell if that is/is not the case.