# News & Current Events > U.S. Political News >  What was the alternative to what the police did in Boston?

## Brett85

I've heard a lot of criticism from libertarians here and on Facebook about the way in which the police in Boston and the Governor and Mayor handled this situation.  Most of the criticism is focused on searching house to house which raises 4th amendment concerns, the order for people to stay in their homes and not go to work, the order to close the Subway, the airport, etc.  I'm not saying that these aren't legitimate concerns and questions, but what exactly was the alternative in this situation?  What should've been done to catch this suspect?

----------


## JK/SEA

how did they catch Bonnie and Clyde?

----------


## MelissaWV

> I've heard a lot of criticism from libertarians here and on Facebook about the way in which the police in Boston and the Governor and Mayor handled this situation.  Most of the criticism is focused on searching house to house which raises 4th amendment concerns, the order for people to stay in their homes and not go to work, the order to close the Subway, the airport, etc.  I'm not saying that these aren't legitimate concerns and questions, but what exactly was the alternative in this situation?  What should've been done to catch this suspect?


You realize that the suspect was caught AFTER the lockdown was lifted and this man was allowed to go into his own backyard on his own property without fear of the cops mistaking him for a lanky 19-year-old, right?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> how did they catch Bonnie and Clyde?


Very bad example.

----------


## Brett85

> You realize that the suspect was caught AFTER the lockdown was lifted and this man was allowed to go into his own backyard on his own property without fear of the cops mistaking him for a lanky 19-year-old, right?


Yeah.  The lockdown was the only thing they did that probably wasn't necessary, in my opinion.  But, I think that closing down the Airport, public transportation, and going door to door to look for the suspect was necessary.

----------


## Origanalist

They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do. I cannot in my lifetime remember a whole city being shut down before.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Very bad example.


Bonnie and Clyde were terrorizing the country. With machine guns.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Bonnie and Clyde were terrorizing the country.


They were summarily executed after being set up.

----------


## Origanalist

> Yeah.  The lockdown was the only thing they did that probably wasn't necessary, in my opinion.  But, I think that closing down the Airport, public transportation, and going door to door to look for the suspect was necessary.


No, entering people homes without a warrant is never justified.

----------


## Brett85

> They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do. I cannot in my lifetime remember a whole city being shut down before.


They would probably do that if this had just been an ordinary crime, but obviously it wasn't.  This was an extraordinary situation.

----------


## Brett85

> No, entering people homes without a warrant is never justified.


I read that the police asked permission to enter these homes before they came in.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Yeah.  The lockdown was the only thing they did that probably wasn't necessary, in my opinion.  But, I think that closing down the Airport, public transportation, and going door to door to look for the suspect was necessary.


They didn't find him by going door to door, though, and actually that was a very dangerous thing to do.  It could have easily become a hostage situation if he snuck into a home and was as armed as they said.  Telling everyone to shelter in place made it easier for people not to be missed, as opposed to "Oh God, Helen didn't come in to work today and she lives right near where this happened!  Maybe something went wrong!"  

The airport already has security, right?  I would think that this guy would stand out, and keeping the airports open BUT BEING ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THIS GUY would have been pretty smart.  I am guessing that's why it was allowed for a bit (you can be certain the Feds were checking passengers against the video/stills).  

Bus routes are also pretty easy to follow, and since this was a deviation in their plans, it would be narrowed down to people purchasing tickets after the gunfight.

None of these are superb, and certainly privacy is still invaded, but yeah they are viable alternatives to shutting down a city and jailing all the law-abiders to see who the criminals are (anyone going outside, obviously, because criminals don't know how to blend or hide).

----------


## Origanalist

> They would probably do that if this had just been an ordinary crime, but obviously it wasn't.  This was an extraordinary situation.


It will always be a extraordinary time now. If you can't see the precedent set here, I don't know what to tell you. I must assume you're old enough to know this is a new phenomenon.

----------


## green73

> I read that the police asked permission to enter these homes before they came in.


LOL

----------


## Origanalist

> I read that the police asked permission to enter these homes before they came in.


In the same way they "asked" people to stay in their homes.

----------


## Brett85

> It will always be a extraordinary time now. If you can't see the precedent set here, I don't know what to tell you. I must assume you're old enough to know this is a new phenomenon.


It was an extraoridinary situation because it was only the 2nd terrorist attack on our soil in our country's history.  It's not something that happens every day.

----------


## Brett85

> In the same way they "asked" people to stay in their homes.


Do you have any evidence that they went into people's homes without their permission?

----------


## Brett85

> They didn't find him by going door to door, though, and actually that was a very dangerous thing to do.  It could have easily become a hostage situation if he snuck into a home and was as armed as they said.  Telling everyone to shelter in place made it easier for people not to be missed, as opposed to "Oh God, Helen didn't come in to work today and she lives right near where this happened!  Maybe something went wrong!"  
> 
> The airport already has security, right?  I would think that this guy would stand out, and keeping the airports open BUT BEING ON THE LOOKOUT FOR THIS GUY would have been pretty smart.  I am guessing that's why it was allowed for a bit (you can be certain the Feds were checking passengers against the video/stills).  
> 
> Bus routes are also pretty easy to follow, and since this was a deviation in their plans, it would be narrowed down to people purchasing tickets after the gunfight.
> 
> None of these are superb, and certainly privacy is still invaded, but yeah *they are viable alternatives* to shutting down a city and jailing all the law-abiders to see who the criminals are (anyone going outside, obviously, because criminals don't know how to blend or hide).


What alternatives?  You didn't mention anything about what the police should've done to catch the suspect.

----------


## MelissaWV

> LOL




LOL

----------


## MelissaWV

> What alternatives?  You didn't mention anything about what the police should've done to catch the suspect.


Erm, the same thing they always try to do?  Look out for the suspect at escape routes (instead of closing them), enlisting the public's help (rather than shutting them indoors), treating the public as law-abiders instead of criminals (you know, letting them out to get food, go to doctors' appointments, etc.).  

I mentioned ways to attempt to track the guy without shutting things down.  Looks pretty clear even when I reread my post.

----------


## Brett85

How long would it have taken for the police to get a warrant in the homes where the owner refused the search?

----------


## Brett85

> Erm, the same thing they always try to do?


Do you view this as being the same as any ordinary crime?

----------


## JK/SEA

> They were summarily executed after being set up.


the question was on alternatives. Yes, they were set-up, but they could have just as easily got them alive. Bottomline, they found them without using thousands of para-miltary bull$#@! cops.

----------


## MelissaWV

> Do you view this as being the same as any ordinary crime?


Not really, which is why there are jurisdictional concerns.  I wouldn't want just the local police department on this.  They would lack the forensics labs, for instance, to process all of the evidence generated by the bombings.

I do view the process of capturing him to be the same.  Shutting everything down and establishing a perimeter was a stupid idea, as evidenced by the fact that they either went to this guy's house and totally missed the boat, or they didn't go "door to door" there, even though it was near where the previous night's firefight had been.

----------


## Brett85

> Not really, which is why there are jurisdictional concerns.  I wouldn't want just the local police department on this.  They would lack the forensics labs, for instance, to process all of the evidence generated by the bombings.
> 
> I do view the process of capturing him to be the same.  Shutting everything down and establishing a perimeter was a stupid idea, as evidenced by the fact that they either went to this guy's house and totally missed the boat, or they didn't go "door to door" there, even though it was near where the previous night's firefight had been.


As I said, I don't necessarily think the lockdown was a good idea in light of the fact that the suspect was actually found and arrested after they lifted the lockdown.  But, some here seem to be suggesting that the police shouldn't have pursued and looked for this guy at all, which I just don't agree with.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> the question was on alternatives. Yes, they were set-up, but they could have just as easily got them alive. Bottomline, they found them without using thousands of para-miltary bull$#@! cops.


Yeah I got what you trying to say and agree. Bonnie and Clyde should have had their day in court. Cops were upset that one of their own was gunned down and took 'justice' into their own hands. That was why I said it was a bad example.

As to the OP there's no way in hell I accept the premise that you need however many thousands of cops to catch someone. I don't care what they did.

Pablo Escobar's manhunt was smaller.

----------


## tod evans

Well I personally have problems with government employees dressed in body armor and carrying full auto weapons going door to door for _any_ reason.

I have a problem with government employees setting foot on my dirt at all.

I don't view anybody employed in that capacity as a peacekeeper and I certainly don't view them as as good people.

I've discussed the the happenings in Boston with my neighbors and we are in agreement that should anything similar happen out here in the sticks we will stand together and refuse access to our property until the local sheriff delivers a signed warrant himself.

----------


## Origanalist

> As I said, I don't necessarily think the lockdown was a good idea in light of the fact that the suspect was actually found and arrested after they lifted the lockdown.  But, some here seem to be suggesting that the police shouldn't have pursued and looked for this guy at all, which I just don't agree with.


Eh?

----------


## fisharmor

> How long would it have taken for the police to get a warrant in the homes where the owner refused the search?


Did you get hit on the head or something?

Do you remember Lee Boyd Malvo and John Allen Muhammed?  There's your case study right there.

When crazy dipshits are running around randomly killing people, ordinary citizens tend not to like it very well.
You can either treat citizens like little more than complicating factors in your lockdown, or you can treat them like the reason you're trying to catch the bad guy in the first place.

----------


## Origanalist

> Do you have any evidence that they went into people's homes without their permission?


No. I read no reports of forced entry either.

----------


## Origanalist

I'm getting famous.

----------


## The Gold Standard

The funny thing is the Constitution provides for too much government for many of our liking, but we are the ones defending it from Democrats and Republicans alike that pick and choose which parts they want to obey and which ones they don't. If you want troops to be allowed to invade homes at their will, amend the $#@!ing Constitution. Until then, spare me what judges say about it.

----------


## Brett85

> The funny thing is the Constitution provides for too much government for many of our liking, but we are the ones defending it from Democrats and Republicans alike that pick and choose which parts they want to obey and which ones they don't. If you want troops to be allowed to invade homes at their will, amend the $#@!ing Constitution. Until then, spare me what judges say about it.


If you want to have no warrantless searches under any circumstances, then amend the Constitution and strike out the words "unreasonable searches" and replace it with the words "no searches."

----------


## The Gold Standard

> If you want to have no warrantless searches under any circumstances, then amend the Constitution and strike out the words "unreasonable searches" and replace it with the words "no searches."


Warrantless is the same word a unreasonable. Why don't you understand that? Warrant is a synonym of reason.

----------


## Brett85

> Warrantless is the same word a unreasonable. Why don't you understand that?


There just isn't a single federal judge who sees it that way.  Look, I'm generally against warrantless searches.  I'm opposed to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, warrantless drone use, etc.  But I also recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have the authority to search homes without a warrant in extraordinary situations where there's an imminent threat to public safety.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> But I also recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have the authority to search homes without a warrant in extraordinary situations where there's an imminent threat to public safety.


Which is all the time, every day, 24/7.

The Homeland is the battlefield everyday in a War on Terror that is open-ended and never, ever going to end.

We have always been at war with Eastasia.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> There just isn't a single federal judge who sees it that way.  Look, I'm generally against warrantless searches.  I'm opposed to the Patriot Act, warrantless wiretapping, warrantless drone use, etc.  But I also recognize that the Supreme Court has ruled that the police have the authority to search homes without a warrant in extraordinary situations where there's an imminent threat to public safety.


There isn't a single federal judge that doesn't feel they can't infringe our right to keep and bear arms. Their opinions mean nothing. Just read what it says. It is easy. And I don't know how the threat to public safety was any greater looking for this guy than if they were looking for a serial killer. This wasn't an extraordinary situation.

----------


## paulbot24

> Which is all the time, every day, 24/7.
> 
> The Homeland is the battlefield everyday in a War on Terror that is open-ended and never, ever going to end.
> 
> We have always been at war with Eastasia.


We're at war with Eastasia?

----------


## Brett85

> Which is all the time, every day, 24/7.
> 
> The Homeland is the battlefield everyday in a War on Terror that is open-ended and never, ever going to end.
> 
> We have always been at war with Eastasia.


Is there any situation under any circumstances when a member of the government can enter a home without a warrant?  What about a fire and firefighters who enter the home to put the fire out?  What if the owner is on vacation and isn't able to give the firefighters permission to enter his home?

----------


## paulbot24

> Is there any situation under any circumstances when a member of the government can enter a home without a warrant?  What about a fire and firefighters who enter the home to put the fire out?  What if the owner is on vacation and isn't able to give the firefighters permission to enter his home?


When a cat looks distressed. A couple of years ago, my eighty year old father and mother left their house to go on vacation. They had my sister come and check on the cat while they were away. One day as my sister arrived to look in on the cat, she noticed some paperwork by the police left on their dining room table which said a neighbor called and said their cat in the window looked "distressed" and "starving" so the police had been there to make sure the cat was okay. I am not leaving anything out here. That's it. My parents, who have never given the police a reason to do anything but give them a parking ticket actually called their local police to find out which neighbor it was, and get more information as to why they entered their house and the police would not speak to them about it. I'll take my chances with a fire. That's what I have insurance for. At least you know some cop isn't pawning your $#@! or wearing your clothes right now after rifling through your $#@! while you were away.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Is there any situation under any circumstances when a member of the government can enter a home without a warrant?  What about a fire and firefighters who enter the home to put the fire out?  What if the owner is on vacation and isn't able to give the firefighters permission to enter his home?


No, not if those people have the power of arrest and incarceration behind them.

Your home is your castle, or it's not.

Now, clearly, it is not, and hasn't been for a long time.

Hell, this whole damn argument is moot and ridiculous anyway, we're all just squatters on the King's land, and if the King's forces are gonna enter, well, by god, they are going to, and nothing you or I say is gonna stop them.

Magna Carta?

Never heard of it...

----------


## Brett85

> No, not if those people have the power of arrest and incarceration behind them.
> 
> Your home is your castle, or it's not.
> 
> Now, clearly, it is not, and hasn't been for a long time.
> 
> Hell, this whole damn argument is moot and ridiculous anyway, we're all just squatters on the King's land, and if the King's forces are gonna enter, well, by god, they are going to, and nothing you or I say is gonna stop them.
> 
> Magna Carta?
> ...


So you wouldn't have a problem with your local government/fire department just letting your house burn down if you were on vacation and weren't able to give them permission to enter your home?

----------


## Origanalist

Oh boy, here come the "what if's?".......

I have to say TC, you've given a fine example of how liberty is lost.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Oh boy, here come the "what if's?".......


'Would you rathers' are better.

----------


## Origanalist

What if the government didn't do whatever it damn well wanted to and the men in black robes didn't call it legal in the majority of cases?

----------


## liveandletlive

they werent terrorists, it was an inside job, so the snot nosed liberal kids and their witless parents really had nothing to fear. Their rights were being trampled on by the "police state".

----------


## Brett85

> Oh boy, here come the "what if's?".......
> 
> I have to say TC, you've given a fine example of how liberty is lost.


Liberty isn't lost because the police in Boston caught a guy who was suspected of murdering an innocent 8 year old boy and hundreds of others.  Liberty was lost beginning with the creation of the Federal Reserve, then with the New Deal, then with the Great Society, then with the non stop interventionist foreign policy we've had for the last 50 years, etc.  The timeline of how we lost liberty is very long and detailed.

This event is extremely minor compared to all of that.  No resident of Boston was killed by the police in this event or lost their home.

----------


## paulbot24

"What if some kid found this and __________________?"
"So you're saying you'd rather live in country that allows ________________ ?????"
"If you don't like it here in Amerika, why don't you leave?"

Lather.
Rinse.
 Repeat for lovely loss of all liberties.

----------


## Origanalist

> Liberty isn't lost because the police in Boston caught a guy who was suspected of murdering an innocent 8 year old boy and hundreds of others. * Liberty was lost beginning with the creation of the Federal Reserve, then with the New Deal, then with the Great Society, then with the non stop interventionist foreign policy we've had for the last 50 years, etc.*  The timeline of how we lost liberty is very long and detailed.
> 
> This event is extremely minor compared to all of that.  No resident of Boston was killed by the police in this event or lost their home.


But how is it those things came about?

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> What if the government didn't do whatever it damn well wanted to and the men in black robes didn't call it legal in the majoprity of cases?


What if bull$#@! precedents weren't set and constitutionality of future laws wasn't based off of them?

ETA: Maybe I misspoke. They openly admit it's unconstitutional. They just use one of their suggestive phrases such as 'public safety' or 'general welfare' to allow it anyways.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> So you wouldn't have a problem with your local government/fire department just letting your house burn down if you were on vacation and weren't able to give them permission to enter your home?


Depends...if evidence of anything that turns up in the home that is deemed to be "illegal" is supressed and I am not prosecuted for it, because the search was without a warrant and *unreasonable*, then I would have no problem at all.

If, however, and this has happened to people before, if I am to be arrested and prosecuted and thrown in prison because of evidence of "illegal activities" are found while in the process of fighting the fire, then let that $#@!er *burn*.

I can rebuild and recover from that...*as long as I'm not in a government rape cage*.

----------


## Brett85

> But how is it those things came about?


Because we had politicians in Washington DC who didn't believe in liberty and the proper role of government, which is to protect life, liberty, and property.

----------


## Brett85

> Depends...if evidence of anything that turns up in the home that is deemed to be "illegal" is supressed and I am not prosecuted for it, because the search was without a warrant and *unreasonable*, then I would have no problem at all.
> 
> If, however, and this has happened to people before, if I am to be arrested and prosecuted and thrown in prison because of evidence of "illegal activities" are found while in the process of fighting the fire, then let that $#@!er *burn*.
> 
> I can rebuild and recover from that...*as long as I'm not in a government rape cage*.


Then what if the police were allowed to search these homes in Boston without a warrant but weren't actually allowed to use anything found in these homes against the homeowners?  It seems to me like if there is going to be an exception for warrantless searches in a situation like this in order to catch a fugitive, the courts or perhaps the federal government should make it clear that the police shouldn't have the right to seize anything in the house and use it against the homeowner and try to throw the homeowner in prison.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Then what if the police were allowed to search these homes in Boston without a warrant but weren't actually allowed to use anything found in these homes against the homeowners?  It seems to me like if there is going to be an exception for warrantless searches in a situation like this in order to catch a fugitive, the courts or perhaps the federal government should make it clear that the police shouldn't have the right to seize anything in the house and use it against the homeowner and try to throw the homeowner in prison.


Shouldn't...but often do.

Take this poor dumb bastard here...has a fire, does the "right thing" and tells the firefighters about explosives and hazmats, and he's off to jail for the rest of his life.

*Michael Grover, Aurora Man, Arrested After Telling Firefighters About Homemade Explosives In Shed* 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2719115.html

Posted: 02/19/2013 3:12 pm EST  |  Updated: 02/20/2013 10:10 am EST

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> Because we had politicians in Washington DC who didn't believe in liberty and the proper role of government, *which is to protect life, liberty, and property*.


To me, you have failed to make the case the 7,000-10,000 cops* saturating a particular area did that.

I would have feared for my life, at least, if I dared to venture outside. I would have feared for my property. And I sure as hell would have feared for my liberty for questioning their authority in searching my home or that I need to go inside. (might be ordered to strip naked or something.. I think I read about that happening in my history books. I don't think it could happen here though) That many armed, badgeless, nameless, aren't going to be accountable to anyone-less, _storm troopers_ worries me more than the bombs the suspect might have had. 

I don't care what the suspect has allegedly done. People in our country's history have done worse. The response was outrageous. That many cops in a line as if they are all going to be able to shoot. (without hitting another cop around them) It was a show of force.. and an expensive, disgusting one at that. There have been 'worse' (hard to argue who's worse, I know) people caught with far less presence than that. It is insanity.

ETA: * and my 'cops' description was used liberally. I mean National Guard, DHS, FBI, etc. Whoever may have been out there. (I'm sure quite a lot of different agencies were)

----------


## Anti Federalist

This +rep.

I would have been much, much more afraid of getting randomly lit up by a squad of these clowns hut hutting about, than getting shot or blown up by one injured, on the run, suspect.

You are 8 times more likely to be killed by a cop than a terrorist.




> To me, you have failed to make the case the 7,000-10,000 cops saturating a particular area did that.
> 
> I would have feared for my life, at least, if I dared to venture outside. I would have feared for my property. And I sure as hell would have feared for my liberty for questioning their authority in searching my home or that I need to go inside. (might be ordered to strip naked or something.. I think I read about that happening in my history books. I don't think it could happen here though) That many armed, badgeless, nameless, aren't going to be accountable to anyone-less, _storm troopers_ worries me more than the bombs the suspect might have had. 
> 
> I don't care what the suspect has allegedly done. People in our country's history have done worse. The response was outrageous. That many cops in a line as if they are all going to be able to shoot. (without hitting another cop around them) It was a show of force.. and an expensive, disgusting one at that. There have been 'worse' (hard to argue who's worse, I know) people caught with far less presence than that. It is insanity.

----------


## jmdrake

> Lol.  I guess "respectfully" went out the window.


The point pcsmor was making, that you ignored, is that when this country was founded there was no such thing as a professional police force.  Calling it a "necessary function of government" is like calling public schools a "necessary function of government."  Now you can argue that society has changed to the point that police are now a necessary function of government, but someone else can argue that society has changed to the point now where state run healthcare is a necessary function of government.  To say "We must have a modern police force or anarchy" is to call the founding fathers anarchists.

----------


## Brett85

> Shouldn't...but often do.
> 
> Take this poor dumb bastard here...has a fire, does the "right thing" and tells the firefighters about explosives and hazmats, and he's off to jail for the rest of his life.
> 
> *Michael Grover, Aurora Man, Arrested After Telling Firefighters About Homemade Explosives In Shed* 
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/0...n_2719115.html
> 
> Posted: 02/19/2013 3:12 pm EST  |  Updated: 02/20/2013 10:10 am EST


Yeah, I see what you're saying.

----------


## Brett85

> The point pcsmor was making, that you ignored, is that when this country was founded there was no such thing as a professional police force.  Calling it a "necessary function of government" is like calling public schools a "necessary function of government."  Now you can argue that society has changed to the point that police are now a necessary function of government, but someone else can argue that society has changed to the point now where state run healthcare is a necessary function of government.  To say "We must have a modern police force or anarchy" is to call the founding fathers anarchists.


State run health care isn't unconstitutional.  Federal government run healthcare is unconstitutional.  That's the point I was making to pcosmar, that it's not unconstitutional for a state or local government to have a police force.

----------


## Brett85

> To me, you have failed to make the case the 7,000-10,000 cops* saturating a particular area did that.


How many cops do you think there should've been?

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> The same thing when the whole system went into high alert mode over the parents that "kidnapped" their own children.
> 
> I quizzed my deck officers, with well over 150 combined years of experience, not ONE of us had EVER heard a radio broadcast like we heard when that whole situation was going on.


How long did it take before the AMBER Alert System was being misused for custody battles? And now "shelter in place" is de facto martial law.

----------


## jmdrake

> I've asked before, and you failed to respond.  Please provide quotes of these people that have posted that "police should've simply put out a "wanted poster"" and what not.  You keep claiming "people" are posting that cops should have done "nothing" and other such words, but never back it up.  I've read all these threads and have never seen it.   However, you have a long (as in, years) history of conveniently  rewording the opinions/assertions of others and completely misrepresenting them.
> 
> You've certainly done it at least half a dozen times in this very thread, as has been pointed out by several posters.





> It's not the exact same wording, but similar.





> They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do. I cannot in my lifetime remember a whole city being shut down before.


Oh *bull testicals*!  Totally different meaning!  Origanalist was saying that the cops should have sent out a public description of the perp so that people could call in tips but not approach, implying *that the police would ultimately be the ones to make the actual arrest*.  You dishonestly implied that Origanalist was saying the police should just have put out "wanted posters" and then done *nothing*.  That is a *total* twist of what he said and you freaking know it!

If I didn't know this before, I know it now.  This is a troll thread.  There is no more reason for anyone to waste any more time with you in this thread TC because you are not even *attempting* honesty!  You are presenting the false choice fallacy that anyone who is appalled at the police state display going on in Boston simply wants anarchy while still trying to maintain you "limited government supporter" card.  It's fine for you to have your own opinion.  It's not fine for you to dishonestly represent the opinions of others.

/thread  (If I was a mod I'd lock it.)

----------


## Brett85

> Oh *bull testicals*!  Totally different meaning!  Origanalist was saying that the cops should have sent out a public description of the perp so that people could call in tips but not approach, implying *that the police would ultimately be the ones to make the actual arrest*.  You dishonestly implied that Origanalist was saying the police should just have put out "wanted posters" and then done *nothing*.  That is a *total* twist of what he said and you freaking know it!


No, we just have a different interpretation of what he said.  He didn't say anything about calling the police and having the police arrest the suspect.  The way I read it is that he was saying that private citizens should approach the suspect more carefully in this situation, as he's armed and dangerous, and because we want to take him alive rather than kill him.

----------


## Origanalist

> Because we had politicians in Washington DC who didn't believe in liberty and the proper role of government, which is to protect life, liberty, and property.


Not to be redundant here, but how did we get those polititians?

----------


## Brett85

> Not to be redundant here, but how did we get those polititians?


Because voters voted for politicians who would redistribute wealth from the upper class and give it to them.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, I just respectfully disagree.  I'm just a believer in limited government rather than an anarchist or almost-anarchist.  I don't have a problem with the basic functions of government like the military, the police, the court system, etc.  Also, the 10th amendment limits the power of the federal government, not state and local governments.  Many of the recent police powers given to the federal government are unconstitutional, but there's nothing in the Constitution which prevents states and local governments from having a police force.





> State run health care isn't unconstitutional.  Federal government run healthcare is unconstitutional.  That's the point I was making to pcosmar, that it's not unconstitutional for a state or local government to have a police force.


You are dishonestly trying to change your argument after I called you on it.  I went back and quoted what you said earlier which is that you felt the military, police and court system were "necessary functions of government."  Yes you also added that there was nothing in the constitution that prevented them, *but you called them NECESSARY functions of government*.  Pcsmor pointed out through a history lesson that you didn't bother to read that the framers of the constitution didn't find the police force to be a *necessary function of government*.  So for you to say that if you don't advocate having a police force that you are an anarchist is dishonest.  Not unless you think that those who opposed Massachuettes state run healthcare system were anarchists.  Maybe you do think that?

----------


## Brett85

> You are dishonestly trying to change your argument after I called you on it.  I went back and quoted what you said earlier which is that you felt the military, police and court system were "necessary functions of government."  Yes you also added that there was nothing in the constitution that prevented them, *but you called them NECESSARY functions of government*.  Pcsmor pointed out through a history lesson that you didn't bother to read that the framers of the constitution didn't find the police force to be a *necessary function of government*.  So for you to say that if you don't advocate having a police force that you are an anarchist is dishonest.  Not unless you think that those who opposed Massachuettes state run healthcare system were anarchists.  Maybe you do think that?


If you go back and read the post, I said "anarchist" or "almost-anarchist."

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> No, we just have a different interpretation of what he said.  He didn't say anything about calling the police and having the police arrest the suspect.  The way I read it is that he was saying that private citizens should approach the suspect more carefully in this situation, as he's armed and dangerous, and because we want to take him alive rather than kill him.


That's the problem with not using commas, or more clear phrasing.
He meant, "As the police usually do, tell them not to approach", not, "Tell them not to approach as they usually approach" 

_edit: I usually re-read my posts and edit if appropriate when posting, not always, if it is more than a sentence or two, to edit for clarity or blatant misspelling._

----------


## Origanalist

Lol at this entire thread. jmdrake, I believe you had it right on the last page.

----------


## jmdrake

> They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do. I cannot in my lifetime remember a whole city being shut down before.





> No, we just have a different interpretation of what he said.  He didn't say anything about calling the police and having the police arrest the suspect.  The way I read it is that he was saying that private citizens should approach the suspect more carefully in this situation, as he's armed and dangerous, and because we want to take him alive rather than kill him.


Oh come on!  Seriously?  Is there a reading problem going on here?  Because Originalist clearly said police should have told the public *not* to approach the suspects.  That is what police *usually* do!  The point that *most everyone* has been making is that this situation wasn't so freaking "extraordinary" that the usual police procedures for dealing with armed and dangerous suspects needed to be altered.  And at no time in recent memory have police ever suggested the public approach any armed and dangerous suspect *at all*.  A third grader could have understood clearly what Origanalist was saying.

----------


## jmdrake

> If you go back and read the post, I said "anarchist" or "almost-anarchist."


Okay.  So you think the founding fathers were "almost-anarchists".  Gotcha.

----------


## Origanalist

> That's the problem with not using commas, or more clear phrasing.
> He meant, "As the police usually do, tell them not to approach", not, "Tell them not to approach as they usually approach" 
> 
> _edit: I usually re-read my posts and edit if appropriate when posting, not always, but if it is more than a sentence or two._


You are correct, I should have phrased that more accurately, been more precise, exact, etc..........

----------


## jmdrake

> That's the problem with not using commas, or more clear phrasing.
> He meant, "As the police usually do, tell them not to approach", not, "Tell them not to approach as they usually approach" 
> 
> _edit: I usually re-read my posts and edit if appropriate when posting, not always, if it is more than a sentence or two, to edit for clarity or blatant misspelling._


What syntax misses, context catches.  Sorry but I'm not giving TC a pass on this one.  Not unless he has a recent case in mind were police told the public "You can approach suspects that are armed and dangerous...but just be careful okay?"

----------


## Brett85

> Oh come on!  Seriously?  Is there a reading problem going on here?  Because Originalist clearly said police should have told the public *not* to approach the suspects.  That is what police *usually* do!  The point that *most everyone* has been making is that this situation wasn't so freaking "extraordinary" that the usual police procedures for dealing with armed and dangerous suspects needed to be altered.  And at no time in recent memory have police ever suggested the public approach any armed and dangerous suspect *at all*.  A third grader could have understood clearly what Origanalist was saying.


"They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do."

I read this quote as saying that citizens shouldn't approach suspects "as they usually do," but should approach them differently this time since the suspect is armed and dangerous and needs to be taken alive.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> You are correct, I should have phrased that more accurately, been more precise, exact, etc..........


Nah, I don't care.  I stopped and re-read that phrase, because I knew you wouldn't say that the way I read it first, so I applied a comma, in my head, and then understood.
Sometimes, it becomes an art to read internet speak, can even be fun.

----------


## Brett85

> Okay.  So you think the founding fathers were "almost-anarchists".  Gotcha.


As to the actual point you brought up, how many people were there in our country when it was first founded?  Less than a million?  How many people live in our country now?  Over 300 million?  The need for a police force in today's world that wasn't necessary when our country was founded should be obvious.

----------


## Origanalist

> "They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do."
> 
> I read this quote as saying that citizens shouldn't approach suspects "as they usually do," but should approach them differently this time since the suspect is armed and dangerous and needs to be taken alive.


Lol, so how do they "usually" approach them?

----------


## jmdrake

> "They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do."
> 
> I read this quote as saying that citizens shouldn't approach suspects "as they usually do," but should approach them differently this time since the suspect is armed and dangerous and needs to be taken alive.


Fine.  I don't see how you could possibly come to that conclusion based on the context, but fine.  Stranger things have happened.  So now we know what was being said is police should have followed the normal procedures.  And since the perp was caught after everybody went back to the normal procedures (go about your life, but if you see this guy don't try to apprehend him but call us), then the correct answer to your original question is "The alternative is the police could have followed the normal procedures."  That doesn't mean the police couldn't have set up a perimeter.  Setting up perimeters are part of normal procedures.  But a dragnet that looked like something out of some dystopian nightmare movie was unnecessary.

/thread.

----------


## jmdrake

> As to the actual point you brought up, how many people were there in our country when it was first founded?  Less than a million?  How many people live in our country now?  Over 300 million?  The need for a police force in today's world that wasn't necessary when our country was founded should be obvious.


Same argument can be made for public education, universal healthcare, welfare, parks, public health inspectors, fill-in-the-blank.

----------


## Brett85

> Lol, so how do they "usually" approach them?


Lol, I don't know.  That's just the way that I read your statement, because it seemed to be written in a way that would lead to that interpretation.

----------


## Origanalist

> As to the actual point you brought up, how many people were there in our country when it was first founded?  Less than a million?  How many people live in our country now?  Over 300 million?  The need for a police force in today's world that wasn't necessary when our country was founded should be obvious.


Ah yes, it's the old "it's a different country now" refrain. It's a different country because nitwits were convinced it was a different country by people who want the state to have supreme power. The same type of nitwits that were convinced we needed the new deal, the federal reserve, etc. etc.

----------


## Brett85

> Same argument can be made for public education, universal healthcare, welfare, parks, public health inspectors, fill-in-the-blank.


Not really, because 

1)  The federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do any of those things.  
2)  Most of the things you mentioned can at least theoretically be privatized, or in the case of welfare be conducted by private churches and charities.  I don't see how it would be possible to privatize the police.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Ah yes, it's the old "it's a different country now" refrain. It's a different country because nitwits were convinced it was a different country by people who want the state to have supreme power. The same type of nitwits that were convinced we needed the new deal, the federal reserve, etc. etc.


Also, there were less people, yes, but in a smaller area  _edit: with Injuns all 'round._

----------


## Brett85

> Ah yes, it's the old "it's a different country now" refrain. It's a different country because nitwits were convinced it was a different country by people who want the state to have supreme power. The same type of nitwits that were convinced we needed the new deal, the federal reserve, etc. etc.


So you're in favor of having no police?  I thought your position was that private citizens should notify the police when they see a suspect, and the police should actually arrest the suspect?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> So you're in favor of having no police?  I thought your position was that private citizens should notify the police when they see a suspect, and the police should actually arrest the suspect?


Wow....since they're already here doing what they are doing 

_edit: Don't expand it, their powers and presence._

----------


## Origanalist

Jus keep thinkin TC. Have a good night.

----------


## Brett85

> Wow....since they're already here doing what they are doing 
> 
> _edit: Don't expand it, their powers and presence._


Look, I've been accused of distorting people's positions, so I'll just ask you and Originalist questions instead.

1)  Do you believe that the police should exist?
2)  Do you believe that there should be any government at all?

----------


## jmdrake

> Not really, because 
> 
> 1)  The federal government doesn't have the Constitutional authority to do any of those things.


SMH The federal government doesn't have the constitutional authority to create a police force either so that point is *totally* irrelevant.




> 2)  Most of the things you mentioned can at least theoretically be privatized, or in the case of welfare be conducted by private churches and charities.  I don't see how it would be possible to privatize the police.


Theoretically you can have elected sheriffs who deputize citizens on a voluntary basis as needed.  But you'd know that if you bothered reading pcsomar's link.  Most "policing" done today is to enforce unnecessary laws anyway.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> How many cops do you think there should've been?


Far, far, less than were there. I don't have a specific number. There could have been people running down leads, relaying the information to the few officers 'on the ground.' It really isn't that unreasonable to suggest upwards of 10,000 cops in an area is unreasonable. Pablo Escobar ordered planes blown up out of the sky,  ordered the storming and assassination of a majority of the Supreme Court Justices, ordered the assassination of a presidential candidate, and was responsible for over a thousand times more dead than these brothers are allegedly responsible for. They didn't bring 10,000 of the Colombian National Police into Barrio Pablo Escobar. (read into the atrocities he committed by the way... his organization was leveling city blocks with car bombs to protest his extradition to America... he basically took a country hostage)

To have that many 'police' in an area is ridiculous. Ordering people out of their homes (the one video with backgroud information, at least) Ordering a man who didn't want to stay in his home to strip naked. It's beyond insane. We aint Colombia, and we aint the USSR. I don't feel that damned patriotic when war vehicles are rolling through city streets. To say that the founding fathers wouldn't be rolling in their graves is a foolish statement. To argue it for pages is even more foolish.

FWIW, I wish a homeowner would have confronted him, ordered him to strip naked, (at least I would have, to make sure he wasn't armed with a bomb) and if he made any threatening actions to address the target. It isn't vigilantism. It is self-defense. Maybe _that_ would have shut up the gun-grabbers. (for a little while)

I have my suspicions that such a situation would have ended badly for the homeowner depending on what firearm or magazine he used. (I don't know MA's gun laws verbatim and am only going off of the impression I get from here.. perhaps he would not be arrested if he confronted the suspect with an AR or Glock with a 33 round magazine. I like to think that's the case, anyways. That this is still America)

----------


## Brett85

> Theoretically you can have elected sheriffs who deputize citizens on a voluntary basis as needed.  But you'd know that if you bothered reading pcsomar's link.  Most "policing" done today is to enforce unnecessary laws anyway.


How many people would want to help out the Sheriff if they had a regular full time job?  That just isn't realistic.  You would never have the numbers you would need to be able to keep law and order in cities.  I agree with ending the war on drugs and all of that, but you would still have a lot of legitimate crime even without that, way more crime than a Sheriff and a few part time deputees could handle.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> Look, I've been accused of distorting people's positions, so I'll just ask you and Originalist questions instead.
> 
> 1)  Do you believe that the police should exist?
> 2)  Do you believe that there should be any government at all?


No, and No.

Now, let me say that, that would be in a perfect world where everyone respected one another as they do their own self.  Because I also believe that, how can I separate those principles as though they were independent?

That is why Ron Paul's message (to me) is so broad.  You can't just take a *single* topic and say "this is how it should be" without so many arguments from every direction coming at you.  And nothing will ever be resolved.  And that is because there is reality; where we are today, as human beings.  So, imho, Ron talks about an approach that encompasses many topics, such as foreign policy, legislation of morals, monetary policy (economic freedom), etc.  ALL of those things need to come together at once, or there will be a huge failure of the individual parts on their own.

----------


## jmdrake

> Look, I've been accused of distorting people's positions, so I'll just ask you and Originalist questions instead.
> 
> 1)  Do you believe that the police should exist?
> 2)  Do you believe that there should be any government at all?


Since Origanalist is going to bed, and I should be, I'll answer this last question for him and then go to bed myself.  There is a difference between saying what should have happened in the current reality we live in and what *may* be the ideological ideal.  For example, in the current reality that we live in I believe it is perfectly fine for the Obama administration to tell hospitals that if they aren't going to fully honor a patient's durable power of attorney for healthcare to the point that they will allow the person with the DPAFHC full access to the patient even if the person is the patients gay parter rather than his/her "spouse" that the hospital will have its ability to receive medicare payments suspended.  Does that mean I think that medicare should have been passed in the first place and that no other options should even be considered?  No.  Does it mean on the other hand that I'm for simply abolishing medicare tomorrow without thinking through the ramifications of doing that on a society that has become dependent on medicare/medicaid?  Again no.  

Applying that to this conversation, just origanalist has a mind free enough to contemplate other possibilities doesn't necessarily mean that's what he thinks must happen tomorrow.

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> How many people would want to help out the Sheriff if they had a regular full time job?  That just isn't realistic.  You would never have the numbers you would need to be able to keep law and order in cities.  I agree with ending the war on drugs and all of that, but you would still have a lot of legitimate crime even without that, way more crime than a Sheriff and a few part time deputees could handle.


I know this has been lost somewhere down the line, but people are responsible for their own self-defense. I would help someone if I am able and I am sure a lot of other people would too. I do not want the hassle of dealing with the police. I do not witness. I do not call. No one calls from my phones. I am someone, (when you misclarify _everyone_ as hating the police) who hates the police. Their very presence makes me uncomfortable. (i.e Is my seatbelt on? Was I speeding?) I know *that* isn't freedom.

I would be a happy man to never have to see, listen, talk, deal with a cop so long as I live. And I am a law abiding citizen.

----------


## jmdrake

> How many people would want to help out the Sheriff if they had a regular full time job?  That just isn't realistic.


How do you expect to have an honest coversation if you arrogantly answer your own questions?  The truth is you would get a lot more than you think.  And if local people decided they'd rather pay *voluntarily* for dedicated people to do that, that should certainly be their option.  But because so many people are so closed minded such options do not emerge.




> You would never have the numbers you would need to be able to keep law and order in cities.  I agree with ending the war on drugs and all of that, but you would still have a lot of legitimate crime even without that, way more crime than a Sheriff and a few part time deputees could handle.


Ending the war on drugs would get rid of a lot of other crimes.  And where I live one has to wonder if the police care about serious crimes anyway.  Oh they'll set up stake outs using multiple cops to catch speeders.  But I had a friend who got carjacked in broad daylight.  The police detective assigned to the case basically talked him out of pressing charges!  I talked to the police chief about this *and he was all for that*!  Pull people over for speeding.  Run sobriety checkpoints.  Send four of five cars to a potential drug bust.  What to all of these things have in common?  Potential for the city to earn money.  There's no money in prosecuting carjackers.

----------


## Brett85

> I know this has been lost somewhere down the line, but people are responsible for their own self-defense.


That's just where I disagree.  I believe in a limited government that exists to defend life, liberty, and property.  I don't want to live in a country where it's every man for himself, where only the strong survive.  I believe that government has a role, and it should defend life and liberty, and espcially defend those who aren't capable of defending themselves.

----------


## american.swan

> Well I personally have problems with government employees dressed in body armor and carrying full auto weapons going door to door for _any_ reason.
> 
> I have a problem with government employees setting foot on my dirt at all.
> 
> I don't view anybody employed in that capacity as a peacekeeper and I certainly don't view them as as good people.
> 
> I've discussed the the happenings in Boston with my neighbors and we are in agreement that should anything similar happen out here in the sticks we will stand together and refuse access to our property until the local sheriff delivers a signed warrant himself.


I personally like the idea of gated / walled off communities.  How would the cops enter the complex if they suspected a criminal was hiding inside the walled off zone?  Hopefully with a warrant, but I doubt that would be the case. 

Are there any seriously difficult communities to enter due to walls and gates?

----------


## Brett85

To be honest I never even thought about all of this when I was watching it on TV. I was just hoping that they would catch the suspect. So when I heard all of the criticism it kind of caught me off guard. But, this entire debate has at least made me think a little bit.

Good night everyone.

----------


## american.swan

> I personally like the idea of gated / walled off communities.  How would the cops enter the complex if they suspected a criminal was hiding inside the walled off zone?  Hopefully with a warrant, but I doubt that would be the case. 
> 
> Are there any seriously difficult communities to enter due to walls and gates?


Okay. I just did a search and I find security inside walled communities can be better, but only if done right. (the pizza delivery boy doesn't need access codes to unguarded entrances.)

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> To be honest I never even thought about all of this when I was watching it on TV. I was just hoping that they would catch the suspect. So when I heard all of the criticism it kind of caught me off guard. But, this entire debate has at least made me think a little bit.
> 
> Good night everyone.


TC, one thing for morning coffee.  You mentioned that people being deputized to hunt down criminals (alleged) would take away time from their regular jobs, but, how many people lost a day or so of work during the lockdown?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> That's just where I disagree.  I believe in a limited government that exists to defend life, liberty, and property.


That's nice. A lot of kids believe in Santa Claus too. Governments don't defend life, liberty, and property. They take them.

----------


## J_White

> In the same way they "asked" people to stay in their homes.


they also *asked* people to keep their hands up !

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> That's just where I disagree.  I believe in a limited government that exists to defend life, liberty, and property.  I don't want to live in a country where it's every man for himself, where only the strong survive.  I believe that government has a role, and it should defend life and liberty, and espcially defend those who aren't capable of defending themselves.


I believe in limited governance that exists to defend life, liberty, and property as well.

A monopoly government that exists through taxation cannot defend life, liberty, or property without first threatening life, liberty, and property.

I don't want to live in a world where only those with the means to feed themselves survive. We don't need a monopoly government to achieve the goal of providing for those who are unable to provide for themselves. That goes just as well for physical security as it goes for financial or nutritional security.

Monopoly government cannot feed everyone, it cannot make everyone rich, it cannot make everyone secure in their lives and property. This is the problem with providing for people through government socialism. It can merely take by force and redistribute wealth and make decisions for people command them to obey. This includes physical security. Imagine there was an invader in your home. Which would you prefer in your hand, a gun or a phone? Ultimately it's up to you to make sure that you're secure. It doesn't mean only the strong survive any more than it means that only those who grow food survive when food is provided through the market.

As Mises has shown monopolies also cannot economically calculate what is an efficient use of resources, as they lose price signals from the market. How many "police officers" (what we're really talking about is security guards) should have been on the ground before it became wasteful and those resources could have been better used to improve people's lives? We can't know because instead of the efficient resource allocation of supply and demand, those decisions are centralized and made by bureaucrats instead of free individuals choosing the level of security they feel is appropriate and the amount they should spend on it through the market. If the choice is between purchasing food or putting the 9,999th security guard on the street, maybe getting food would be a more appropriate choice for an individual. Surely there's more cost-effective and less intrusive ways to catch bad guys.

Right now it's not up to us to make those decisions though, because our liberty to choose how our defense is provided and at what cost has been taken from us and what we are left with is an organization which has monopolized security and makes our decisions for us which is purported to exist for our protection, but seems to exist largely to protect the consolidation of power and those groups and individuals who have managed to become influential to this central power. It's a dangerous thing.

----------


## APAT Warrior

All of this was not necessary. This was unwarranted and an excuse to flaunt in front of our faces the "power" that these cops have with the DHS toys and gear. My wife kept telling me these were soldiers and I kept telling her NO, they're not. But they look like them with their ridiculous outfits and weapons.

----------


## Mani

> All of this was not necessary. This was unwarranted and an excuse to flaunt in front of our faces the "power" that these cops have with the DHS toys and gear. My wife kept telling me these were soldiers and I kept telling her NO, they're not. But they look like them with their ridiculous outfits and weapons.


I don't think they were rubbing our nose in it....


But I do think it was for them a good exercise to see how easy it was to Flex their power, and gauge the minimal resistance as they suspected.

And the fallout was minimal, even better....

----------


## tod evans

> All of this was not necessary. This was unwarranted and an excuse to flaunt in front of our faces the "power" that these cops have with the DHS toys and gear. My wife kept telling me these were soldiers and I kept telling her NO, they're not. But they look like them with their ridiculous outfits and weapons.


I agree with your wife.

These "soldiers" might not have drawn their paycheck from the DOD but they certainly mirrored every other feature and behavior of their military counterparts.

You know the soldiers that the now defunct Posse Comitatus Act prohibited from operating within our borders...

----------


## Brett85

After participating in and reading this thread, it's kind of amazing that we all support the same candidates like Rand, Amash, Massie etc.  I guess liberty really does unite people.

----------


## tod evans

> After participating in and reading this thread, it's kind of amazing that we all support the same candidates like Rand, Amash, Massie etc.  I guess liberty really does unite people.


I have a feeling that as you age your world view will change.

Most peoples does.

----------


## nobody's_hero

I'm not fond of sweeping searches because of the implication that you must prove your innocence to the law by showing that you have nothing to hide. That's not really how our system is supposed to work. 

It's supposed to be 'innocent until proven guilty.' 

But it seems to be morphing into: 'guilty until we rifle through your $#@! and determine you're probably innocent.'

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> After participating in and reading this thread, it's kind of amazing that we all support the same candidates like Rand, Amash, Massie etc.  I guess liberty really does unite people.


_"you must spread some reputation before giving it to TC again"_

----------


## BAllen

Alternative? Hand out firearms to head of households.

----------


## CPUd



----------


## KerriAnn

Maybe someone posted this already...

----------


## Dr.3D

> Maybe someone posted this already...


Yeah, not to worry though.... those cops obviously had a search warrant or they wouldn't have done that.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> All of this was not necessary. This was unwarranted and an excuse to flaunt in front of our faces the "power" that these cops have with the DHS toys and gear. My wife kept telling me these were soldiers and I kept telling her NO, they're not. But they look like them with their ridiculous outfits and weapons.


That is probably closer to the root of all of the abuse. It may be human nature. Give them training, costumes and toys, and the temptation will always be there to use them. They will look for reasons to "deploy". Any excuse, no matter how minor. Look at the "drug raids". Absolutely unnecessary to have militarized Police engaged in military tactics for every day warrants. They do it because they have the equipment, practiced using it, want to use it, and the war on drugs gives them the perfect excuse to practice on live citizens (and not so live dogs).

Everything is a nail to a hammer.

----------


## Czolgosz

All those people who died fighting Red Coats wasted their lives.  What a shame.

----------


## Cap

> All those people who died fighting Red Coats wasted their lives.  What a shame.


Right now...truth. Hopefully we can change that.

----------


## Czolgosz

> Right now...truth. Hopefully we can change that.


Me too.. and lol bat signal.

----------


## affa

> Um, I did quote it.  I'll quote it again.


We read his quote quite differently.  You read it as 'cops should do nothing'.  I read it as 'cops should do what they do in every other case', which is... not lockdown the city.   

Originalist's quote is:
"They could have simply broadcast their pictures, and told people to be on the lookout for them but not to approach as they usually do. I cannot in my lifetime remember a whole city being shut down before."

To me, that's saying the city shouldn't have been locked down, but instead the people should have been alerted to the perps so they could keep an eye out TOO.  That's basing the two sentences in context with each other, most importantly the second sentence: "I cannot in my lifetime remember a whole city being shut down before." 

You read it as him saying 'cops should do absolutely nothing'.  But that's not what he said, and in my opinion, not even what he implied.

EDIT -- reading through the thread i see Jmdrake already beat you to a pulp for your (intentional?) misreading of Originalist's quote.  But again, you have a multi-year history of (intentionally?) misrepresenting what people say.  I don't know if it's (intentionally?) disingenuous, or if you simply have issues with reading comprehension, but I do know posters here have been calling you out on it for -years-.   You have a consistent habit of conveniently rewording/rephrasing/summarizing the statements of other people into something completely different in meaning from what they actually said.  Perhaps you should take that into consideration when you post.  You need to work on reading comprehension.  And if you feel that's untrue, then you need to work on honesty... because it's one or the other.

----------


## Sam I am

> Do you have any evidence that they went into people's homes without their permission?


If the cops came to your door and asked permission to search for the suspect, would you let them?

----------


## noneedtoaggress

> That is probably closer to the root of all of the abuse. It may be human nature. Give them training, costumes and toys, and the temptation will always be there to use them. They will look for reasons to "deploy". Any excuse, no matter how minor. Look at the "drug raids". Absolutely unnecessary to have militarized Police engaged in military tactics for every day warrants. They do it because they have the equipment, practiced using it, want to use it, and the war on drugs gives them the perfect excuse to practice on live citizens (and not so live dogs).
> 
> Everything is a nail to a hammer.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment

----------


## idiom

> *Timothy McVeigh was caught for not having a license plate, by a single state trooper.* 
> 
> And, if you believe the official story, he killed waaaaay more people.
> 
> That goes to show you just how rapidly we are sliding down the hill. The OKC bombing was in 1995.


There have only ever been 2 terrorist attacks on American soil ever. What nonsense are you referring to?

----------


## CPUd

> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment


These also apply to the citizenry, if they were to be deputized for a manhunt (one of the alternative suggestions).

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> There have only ever been 2 terrorist attacks on American soil ever. What nonsense are you referring to?




There was a post outlining nearly a hundred past terrorist attacks in the US.

----------


## Brett85

> If the cops came to your door and asked permission to search for the suspect, would you let them?


In a situation like what happened in Boston, why would I not want to allow the police to search my home?  I would've wanted to help the police in any way I could to catch a brutal murderer who was responsible for murdering an innocent 8 year old kid and injuring hundreds of others.

----------


## otherone

> In a situation like what happened in Boston, why would I not want to allow the police to search my home?  I would've wanted to help the police in any way I could to catch a brutal murderer who was responsible for murdering an innocent 8 year old kid and injuring hundreds of others.


I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is no one in my home right now that I am not aware of.  I don't need the local PD's  help to determine this.  You can help the cops by searching your own damn place.

----------


## CPUd

To hell with searching my own place.  I lose my keys all the time.  Just post his pics on Facebook and hope he turns himself in.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> There was a post outlining nearly a hundred past terrorist attacks in the US.


Real ones or otherwise?  The news tonight said 60.  But we know, that 90-95% of the ones in the last decade and a half, at least have been orchestrated by the FBI to entrap some gullible patsy.

-t

----------


## Brett85

> I can tell you with 100% certainty that there is no one in my home right now that I am not aware of.  I don't need the local PD's  help to determine this.  You can help the cops by searching your own damn place.


But it could've slowed down the process if I had lived in Boston and refused to allow the police to search my home.  It could've forced them to wait outside my door for 30 minutes while they get a warrant from a judge.

----------


## Brett85

Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and have absolutely nothing to hide.

----------


## tod evans

> why would I not want to allow the police to search my home?  I would've wanted to help the police in any way I could


Oh for heavens sake!

----------


## otherone

> But it could've slowed down the process if I had lived in Boston and refused to allow the police to search my home.  It could've forced them to wait outside my door for 30 minutes while they get a warrant from a judge.


????
Why would they need a warrant or have to search your house at all if you searched your own house?  The point was to find the bomber, right?   The cops could knock on your door, you would answer and say, "nope..he ain't here."  and they could move on.

----------


## otherone

> Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and have absolutely nothing to hide.


Now I know you're a troll.

----------


## TheTexan

> Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and* have absolutely nothing to hide*.


I truly hope you are being sarcastic.  Somehow, I do not think you are.

----------


## Brett85

> Now I know you're a troll.


Huh?  So in order to oppose the drug war, be a libertarian, or be a believer in limited government, you actually have to be a drug user?

----------


## Brett85

> Why would they need a warrant or have to search your house at all if you searched your own house?


So you think the police would just believe everyone who said that they searched their own house?  They wouldn't consider the possibility that the suspect had friends or relatives who were harboring him in their home?

----------


## Brett85

> I truly hope you are being sarcastic.  Somehow, I do not think you are.


No, I'm not being sarcastic.  I'm a law abiding citizen and very proud of that.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and have absolutely nothing to hide.


Yeah, except for that vial of pills your X or daughter left at your place.  Or that shotgun passed down throgh generations being 1/64th of an inch too short, this after they confiscated all your firearms for "safekeeping" - lest the perp get to them... and leaving you completely disarmed and unable to defend yourself.  Plus facing criminal charges...

YEE HAW - come on in cops!



-t

----------


## JK/SEA

> Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and have absolutely nothing to hide.


Do police ever plant contraband on people and in dwellings to get an arrest?

''oh look sarge...a packet of cocaine on the coffee table...''

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, except for that vial of pills your X or daughter left at your place.  Or that shotgun passed down throgh generations being 1/64th of an inch too short.


And you think the cops would actually be looking for that in a situation where they're trying to find a suspected terrorist in a short amount of time?

----------


## KingNothing

> No, entering people homes without a warrant is never justified.


Agreed, but what if the criminal/terrorist was holding a family hostage?

I have absolutely NO IDEA what the right answer was, but I am positive that entering people's homes is a HUGE deal and that it is very important people realize it.

----------


## JK/SEA

> And you think the cops would actually be looking for that in a situation where they're trying to find a suspected terrorist in a short amount of time?


you ever heard of the PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX. Its big business these days.

----------


## KingNothing

> Do police ever plant contraband on people and in dwellings to get an arrest?
> 
> ''oh look sarge...a packet of cocaine on the coffee table...''


Have their been any other arrests as a result of the door-to-door raids?

----------


## Brett85

> Agreed, but what if the criminal/terrorist was holding a family hostage?


They would say that they couldn't even come into the house in that situation, or at least that's what a gather from what's been said here.

----------


## Brett85

> but I am positive that entering people's homes is a HUGE deal and that it is very important people realize it.


I agree, and I'm not trying to make it sound like it isn't a big deal.  I just don't like it when people constantly try to make the police look like the villans in these kind of situations.

----------


## KingNothing

> Oh for heavens sake!


Oh, stop it.  I don't always agree with Traditional Conservative, but he most certainly is not like that.

This situation was unique and terrible.  There is no clear answer.  With that said, invading EVERY home in a town without any information that the suspect is actually in one of them is crazy.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Have their been any other arrests as a result of the door-to-door raids?



irrelevant.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Quote Originally Posted by kcchiefs6465 View Post 
> 
> I know this has been lost somewhere down the line, but people are responsible for their own self-defense.





> That's just where I disagree. * I believe in a limited government that exists to defend life, liberty, and property.  I don't want to live in a country where it's every man for himself, where only the strong survive.  I believe that government has a role, and it should defend life and liberty, and espcially defend those who aren't capable of defending themselves.*


What does *that* encourage? It encourages people to be $#@!s with a third party (government) sticking a gun in my face to supposedly defend those who do not care to pursue a mutually beneficial relationship with myself but rather _pursue a relationship with the government_. 
 There isn't anything "traditional" or "conservative" about that.  

 It has nothing to do with "it's every man for himself, where only the strong survive", and EVERYTHING to do with mutually beneficial relationships and the blessings they bring in so many ways.

LOVE > FORCE

You _can_ grasp this TC.

----------


## Brett85

> What does *that* encourage? It encourages people to be $#@!s with a third party (government) sticking a gun in my face to supposedly defend those who do not care to pursue a mutually beneficial relationship with myself but rather _pursue a relationship with the government_. 
>  There isn't anything "traditional" or "conservative" about that.  
> 
>  It has nothing to do with "it's every man for himself, where only the strong survive", and EVERYTHING to do with mutually beneficial relationships and the blessings they bring in so many ways.
> 
> LOVE > FORCE
> 
> You _can_ grasp this TC.


I have no idea what that means.  It just sounds like another comment criticizing me for not being an anarchist.  It seems like this forum is being over run with anarchists.

----------


## tangent4ronpaul

> And you think the cops would actually be looking for that in a situation where they're trying to find a suspected terrorist in a short amount of time?


I heard a report of guns being removed from one persons house and searches going on without consent many times.

-t

----------


## Brett85

> I heard a report of guns being removed from one persons house and searches going on without consent many times.
> 
> -t


If that's true, I'm certainly not in favor of that.  If there is an exception in the law that allows warrantless searches in extraordinary situations like this, I think the law needs to state that the police should never be allowed to take anything out of these homes or use anything found in the homes against the homeowner to convict him of some unrelated crime.

----------


## KingNothing

> irrelevant.




Really?  Stop being a dunderhead.  If anyone has been arrested using information gained from one of these searches, that is a major attack on freedom.

----------


## Origanalist

> What was the alternative to what the police did in Boston?


They could just nuke the city and remove *any* terrorist threat. Problem solved.

----------


## KingNothing

> I have no idea what that means.  It just sounds like another comment criticizing me for not being an anarchist.  It seems like this forum is being over run with anarchists.




I'm an anarchist.  I just realize this problem is a difficult one to solve, and that ultimately force is always the final arbiter -- if a stronger group decides that it wants to commit an act, it will commit the act and everyone else will suffer accordingly.  In this case, I'm extremely troubled by the fact that so many people laud what actions the police took.  I'd feel much better about this all if folks looked back with relief and recalcitrance.  But, as it stands, the cops acted as the wished to act, and it seems the people were open to it, and that there was no harm done.  ...now, when this happens again, will we be able to say the same?

----------


## bunklocoempire

> I have no idea what that means.  It just sounds like another comment criticizing me for not being an anarchist.  It seems like this forum is being over run with anarchists.


lol

It's simply a _critique_ that offered a solution to your problem _while allowing you not to contradict yourself_.

I'd ignore it if I were you -consistency is so overrated when it comes to defending liberty.

----------


## KingNothing

> They could just nuke the city and remove *any* terrorist threat. Problem solved.



Well, that would hurt people.  From what we've seen, their actions caused no physical harm to anyone other than the terrorist.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It was an extraoridinary situation because it was only the 2nd terrorist attack on our soil in our country's history.  It's not something that happens every day.


TC, you know better than this.  We should never ever give up our liberties because we are scared.  Never.  Precedents are being set all over the place and next time, they will go further.  

Jeffrey Dahmer *ate* human beings.  The city was not shut down, he was read his rights and had a fair trial by jury.

Please don't start thinking that there ever is an excuse for something very close to martial law.  If you want to talk about an extraordinary event, there it is, and we should all be very concerned.

----------


## Brett85

> TC, you know better than this.  We should never ever give up our liberties because we are scared.  Never.  Precedents are being set all over the place and next time, they will go further.  
> 
> Jeffrey Dahmer *ate* human beings.  The city was not shut down, he was read his rights and had a fair trial by jury.
> 
> Please don't start thinking that there ever is an excuse for something very close to martial law.  If you want to talk about an extraordinary event, there it is, and we should all be very concerned.


Then what should have been done instead?  You guys just act like this was just any common situation with any common criminal, but it simply wasn't.  This wasn't a situation where the police, the mayor, and the Governor had time to all meet together in a building and come to a decision on what the best course of action should be to capture the suspect.  They had to make a decision in the heat of the moment to figure out how to catch someone who was suspected of murdering three people and injuring hundreds of others.  As I've said many times, I don't agree with everything the police did in this situation, but I understand why they did it given the situation that existed and that they didn't have time to sit around in a meeting room and come up with the best course of action to take.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> If that's true, I'm certainly not in favor of that.  If there is an exception in the law that allows warrantless searches in extraordinary situations like this, I think the law needs to state that the police should never be allowed to take anything out of these homes or use anything found in the homes against the homeowner to convict him of some unrelated crime.


Do you think there is a legitimate circumstance for martial law to be declared in our country?

----------


## Brett85

> The city was not shut down, he was read his rights and had a fair trial by jury.


I do disagree with those who say the suspect shouldn't be read his rights or receive a trial by jury.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you think there is a legitimate circumstance for martial law to be declared in our country?


Well, if this wasn't a legitimate circumstance, then there is no legitimate circumstance.  But,

1) It isn't clear whether this was actual "martial law" where people were forced to stay in their homes, or whether the authorities simply asked residents to stay in their homes. That isn't clear.

2)  I've said that the lockdown was a mistake in retrospect given that a private citizen ended up finding the suspect after the lockdown was lifted.  However, I understand why they ordered the lockdown given the situation that existed.  Hindsight is always 20-20.

----------


## KingNothing

> Jeffrey Dahmer *ate* human beings.  The city was not shut down, he was read his rights and had a fair trial by jury.



He wasn't throwing bombs at people, though.  There was no possibility that he was part of a sleeper cell.

There are real differences.  


...and I have ABSOLUTELY what should have happened here.  I don't think they should have busted into homes, but they should have done something.... i just dont know what.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Then what should have been done instead?  You guys just act like this was just any common situation with any common criminal, but it simply wasn't.  This wasn't a situation where the police, the mayor, and the Governor had time to all meet together in a building and come to a decision on what the best course of action should be to capture the suspect.  They had to make a decision in the heat of the moment to figure out how to catch someone who was suspected of murdering three people and injuring hundreds of others.  As I've said many times, I don't agree with everything the police did in this situation, but I understand why they did it given the situation that existed and that they didn't have time to sit around in a meeting room and come up with the best course of action to take.


Why would they have to sit around in a meeting?  All points bulletins are common practice and how hard is it to distribute his picture to the airports in the vicinity?  Searching for this boy should have been no different than finding any other suspect.  Shutting the entire city down was absolutely absurd!

----------


## KingNothing

> Well, if this wasn't a legitimate circumstance, then there is no legitimate circumstance.


That's an excellent statement.

----------


## Brett85

> Searching for this boy should have been no different than finding any other suspect.


Are you seriously saying that you don't see this kid as being any different from any other suspect?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> He wasn't throwing bombs at people, though.  There was no possibility that he was part of a sleeper cell.
> 
> There are real differences.  
> 
> ...and I have ABSOLUTELY what should have happened here.  I don't think they should have busted into homes, but they should have done something.... i just dont know what.


You guys really need to get your heads on straight.  If you can be scared into sacrificing liberty for this, what will you do when the next thing happens?  You really should think about whether you really are interested in having a free society, because you can't have it both ways.

And "doing something", anything, has been the excuse used for a great many infringements on the republic we once had.  It's been chipped away so long that it is now hanging by a thread.

----------


## mike6623

Are you being serious? Do you really think that they are making fun of that comment, because you don't do drugs? Haha, no, it is because the attitude "I have nothing to hide, I don't care" helps no one, and only leads to more and more liberties being stripped. Some people have nothing to hide, and still do not want their rights violated, because, where does it stop?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> Are you seriously saying that you don't see this kid as being any different from any other suspect?


I am saying that principles NEVER change.  NEVER.  They could have found this kid the same way they found every other suspect murderer.  There NEVER is a valid excuse for justifying what was for all intents and purposes, martial law.  How could you condone that?

What you are saying reminds me a lot of discussing the 2nd Amendment with people and they say that our founders could never have envisioned automatic weapons.  I know what I tell people when they say that.  What do you say?

----------


## KingNothing

> Are you being serious? Do you really think that they are making fun of that comment, because you don't do drugs? Haha, no, it is because the attitude "I have nothing to hide, I don't care" helps no one, and only leads to more and more liberties being stripped. Some people have nothing to hide, and still do not want their rights violated, because, where does it stop?


I would have allowed the police to sweep my house, I think, just so they could cross it off their list and focus more energy and certainty on other areas where the criminal may actually be.  They wouldn't have had to violate my rights.  Does that make me a bootlicker?

----------


## JK/SEA

> Really?  Stop being a dunderhead.  If anyone has been arrested using information gained from one of these searches, that is a major attack on freedom.


Dunderhead?...is that a heavy metal band from Denmark?..lol..

anyway, your question was how many arrests were made from the house to house 'raids'...ok...how many is too many?...one? a hundred?...the point is if one was performed, it was one too many, hence the 'irrelevent' answer.

----------


## JK/SEA

> I would have allowed the police to sweep my house, I think, just so they could cross it off their list and focus more energy and certainty on other areas where the criminal may actually be.  They wouldn't have had to violate my rights.  Does that make me a bootlicker?


no. It makes you a dunderhead...lol..

----------


## tod evans

> I would have allowed the police to sweep my house, They wouldn't have had to violate my rights.  Does that make me a bootlicker?


Here ya' go;

----------


## Brett85

> Are you being serious? Do you really think that they are making fun of that comment, because you don't do drugs? Haha, no, it is because the attitude "I have nothing to hide, I don't care" helps no one, and only leads to more and more liberties being stripped. Some people have nothing to hide, and still do not want their rights violated, because, where does it stop?


How does it violate my rights if I *voluntarily consent* to the police searching my home in an extraordinary situation like this?  It doesn't violate the 4th amendment if I volunatarily allow the police to search my home for a suspect who's on the loose.

----------


## Brett85

> I am saying that principles NEVER change.  NEVER.  They could have found this kid the same way they found every other suspect murderer.


It's not the same situation as "every other suspect murderer," because not every other suspect murderer has an arsenal of bombs that he's willing to use against any citizen that he sees out on the street.  The reason for the lockdown wasn't necessarily to find the suspect, but to prevent the suspect from blowing up a bunch of innocent people with bombs, which is what his goal was.  Again, I'm not even saying that the lockdown was right or a good idea, but I can certainly understand why they did it.

----------


## JK/SEA

> How does it violate my rights if I *voluntarily consent* to the police searching my home in an extraordinary situation like this?  It doesn't violate the 4th amendment if I volunatarily allow the police to search my home for a suspect who's on the loose.


sooo, borrowing a term from Ron Paul...WHAT IF..these house to house searches started becoming a weekly, or monthly occurence...ok with you?

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I would have allowed the police to sweep my house, I think, just so they could cross it off their list and focus more energy and certainty on other areas where the criminal may actually be.  They wouldn't have had to violate my rights.  Does that make me a bootlicker?


If you want to do that, ok.  My concern though is that too many people would get used to the government doing what they did in Boston and soon, it would not be a choice of whether you would allow them to search your house, it would be a requirement and without a warrant.

----------


## Brett85

> sooo, borrowing a term from Ron Paul...WHAT IF..these house to house searches started becoming a weekly, or monthly occurence...ok with you?


No, of course not, but that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about a situation where a suspected terrorist was on the loose with an arsenal of bombs that he was willing to use on people out on the street.  That was his goal, to kill as many people as possible.  *This was not a common, ordinary situation,* anyone should be able to see that.

----------


## LibertyEagle

> It's not the same situation as "every other suspect murderer," because not every other suspect murderer has an arsenal of bombs that he's willing to use against any citizen that he sees out on the street.  The reason for the lockdown wasn't necessarily to find the suspect, but to prevent the suspect from blowing up a bunch of innocent people with bombs, which is what his goal was.  Again, I'm not even saying that the lockdown was right or a good idea, but I can certainly understand why they did it.


So the end justifies the means?  TC, there is always going to be a reason that government can give for stripping liberty.  I cannot even count how many times I have called my congressmen and asked how they could justify x or y action, given that it is clearly in violation of the Constitution.  Do you know what I have been told?  Well, ma'am, we are fighting a War on Terror.  I asked if that meant the Constitution was suspended and they wouldn't answer.

Do you see my concern?  This is a very slippery slope you are on.

----------


## Dr.3D

> No, of course not, but that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about a situation where a suspected terrorist was on the loose with an arsenal of bombs that he was willing to use on people out on the street.  That was his goal, to kill as many people as possible.  *This was not a common, ordinary situation,* anyone should be able to see that.


I guess it will be a common ordinary situation if people start to think they can make the government spend tons of money and reduce the freedoms of the citizens of this country by just building a few pipe bombs.

----------


## JK/SEA

> No of course not, but that's not what we're talking about.  We're talking about a situation where a suspected terrorist was on the loose with an arsenal of bombs that he was willing to use on people out on the street.  That was his goal, to kill as many people as possible.  *This was not a common, ordinary situation,* anyone should be able to see that.


OK, so who gets to decide there is a 'terrorist' on the loose, and where is the line on this?...bomb throwers seems to be the litmus ....so far. Whats next...some drunk runs down 20 kids at a school function, now they gotta go door to door with a battlion of hut hut morons busting into your house, and let me remind you those cops in Boston were not all nicey nice about it either...

Whats wrong with coming to the door and asking if you saw anything...yes..no..thankyou have a nice day.

----------


## Brett85

> So the end justifies the means?  TC, there is always going to be a reason that government can give for stripping liberty.  I cannot even count how many times I have called my congressmen and asked how they could justify x or y action, given that it is clearly in violation of the Constitution.  Do you know what I have been told?  Well, ma'am, we are fighting a War on Terror.  I asked if that meant the Constitution was suspended and they wouldn't answer.
> 
> Do you see my concern?  This is a very slippery slope you are on.


Do you think that warrantless searches into a home is unconstitutional in every situation?  For example, if a criminal has taken someone hostage in their own home, should the police be allowed to come into that person's home without a warrant to try to save that person's life?  Or should they have to wait 30 minutes for a warrant from a judge before they can come into the home and try to save the hostage?

----------


## TheTexan

> And you think the cops would actually be looking for that in a situation where they're trying to find a suspected terrorist in a short amount of time?


For someone who has been exposed to the various cop stories on this forum for more than 3 years, you sure are incredibly naive.

----------


## Brett85

> OK, so who gets to decide there is a 'terrorist' on the loose, and where is the line on this?...bomb throwers seems to be the litmus ....so far. Whats next...some drunk runs down 20 kids at a school function, now they gotta go door to door with a battlion of hut hut morons busting into your house, and let me remind you those cops in Boston were not all nicey nice about it either...
> 
> Whats wrong with coming to the door and asking if you saw anything...yes..no..thankyou have a nice day.


I see what you're saying, and I understand you're concern, and you raise a valid point.  But, you have to realize that no federal judge actually shares your interpretation of the 4th amendment.  All federal judges have said that there are exceptions, particularly when there is a threat of imminent danger to the public.  Frankly, I disagree with most of the Supreme Court's opinions that make exceptions for the 4th amendment.  For example, there was a case where the Supreme Court ruled that the police had the right to enter the home of someone who was suspected of dealing marijuana, and they said that the police had the right to enter that person's home because they heard the toilet flush and assumed that the suspect was flushing the marijuana down the toilet.  Now, I strongly disagree with that decision, and probably disagree with 99% of these Supreme Court decisions where the justices make exceptions for the 4th amendment.  But, there's an enormous difference between the police conducting a warrantless search of a suspected drug dealer's home to prevent him from supposedly flushing marijuana down the toilet, and conducting a warrantless search of someone's home to try to catch a suspected terrorist who's goal is to kill as many Americans as possible.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Do you think that warrantless searches into a home is unconstitutional in every situation?  For example, if a criminal has taken someone hostage in their own home, should the police be allowed to come into that person's home without a warrant to try to save that person's life?  Or should they have to wait 30 minutes for a warrant from a judge before they can come into the home and try to save the hostage?


personally i'm not up on current strategy of your scenario. How about waiting them out, contact via phone, bullhorns, relatives talking perp down...another thing, were supposed to be living in a free society and there are no 100% gurantees you're going to get through life without a little rain. Lifes a bitch, and then ya die.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> In a situation like what happened in Boston, why would I not want to allow the police to search my home?  I would've wanted to help the police in any way I could to catch a brutal murderer who was responsible for murdering an innocent 8 year old kid and injuring hundreds of others.


How would searching your home help them catch the murderer unless he was in it, in which case you wouldn't be answering the door anyway?

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and have absolutely nothing to hide.


That's what you think. Wait until they check out your computer and see who you hang out with on the internet.

----------


## AGRP

Werent the home invasions welcomed by the inhabitants? For all you know, they probably enjoyed it.

----------


## Carson

> Do you think that warrantless searches into a home is unconstitutional in every situation?  For example, if a criminal has taken someone hostage in their own home, should the police be allowed to come into that person's home without a warrant to try to save that person's life?  Or should they have to wait 30 minutes for a warrant from a judge before they can come into the home and try to save the hostage?


One justifiable example I can remember hearing of is during a hot pursuit of a criminal and only then if you didn't lose eye contact on them as they entered.

----------


## Brett85

> personally i'm not up on current strategy of your scenario. How about waiting them out, contact via phone, bullhorns, relatives talking perp down...another thing, were supposed to be living in a free society and there are no 100% gurantees you're going to get through life without a little rain. Lifes a bitch, and then ya die.


Well, I have said that I don't agree with everything that the police did.  I'm simply saying that I understand why they did what they did given the situation that existed.  I don't view the police as the enemy.  I'm not "anti government," I just support limited government.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I have no idea what that means.  It just sounds like another comment criticizing me for not being an anarchist.  It seems like this forum is being over run with anarchists.


There are many here that believe in having a state, they just regard it as a necessary evil. They are not anarchists. They do understand though, that it is evil. They have no fairy tale beliefs about benevolent masters that only wish to defend our rights.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Well, I have said that I don't agree with everything that the police did.  I'm simply saying that I understand why they did what they did given the situation that existed.  I don't view the police as the enemy.  I'm not "anti government," I just support limited government.


 the police need to be reigned in. They are out of control most everywhere now.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> Not to mention the fact that I'm not a drug user and don't do anything illegal and have absolutely nothing to hide.


Eye, eye, eye, eye, eye...



You, me, not one damn one of us fully knows for sure *what* laws we are breaking every day.

You've got something to hide from the Matrix, trust me...we *all* do.

----------


## TheTexan

> Do you think that warrantless searches into a home is unconstitutional in every situation?  For example, if a criminal has taken someone hostage in their own home, should the police be allowed to come into that person's home without a warrant to try to save that person's life?  Or should they have to wait 30 minutes for a warrant from a judge before they can come into the home and *try to save the hostage*?


Their job isn't to save the hostage.  Their job is to capture or kill the suspect.  Any saving of hostages is entirely secondary to that objective. 

The idea that cops "protect and serve" is a myth entirely disconnected from reality.  This has been proven time and time again through both the actions of officers, and any resulting case law.

Nevermind, it doesn't matter.  If you haven't realized that yet, you never will.  Here, have a warm fuzzy picture of cops saving a kitty

----------


## Brett85

> There are many here that believe in having a state, they just regard it as a necessary evil. They are not anarchists. They do understand though, that it is evil. They have no fairy tale beliefs about benevolent masters that only wish to defend our rights.


I do understand that sometimes the police abuse our rights rather than defend them.  I'm not arguing otherwise.  But, if the police didn't exist, there would be a far worse abuse of our rights.  Private individuals would be violating our rights every single day, including our right to be alive.

----------


## TheTexan

> I do understand that sometimes the police abuse our rights rather than defend them.  I'm not arguing otherwise.  But, if the police didn't exist, there would be a far worse abuse of your rights.  Private individuals would be violating your rights every single day, including your right to be alive.


Agreed.  If the police didn't exist, there would be anarchy in the streets!!1!

----------


## Anti Federalist

> I do understand that sometimes the police abuse our rights rather than defend them.  I'm not arguing otherwise.  But, if the police didn't exist, there would be a far worse abuse of your rights.  Private individuals would be violating your rights every single day, including your right to be alive.


So how did any of us survive up until 1850 or so?

"Police" are a fairly modern invention.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Do you think that warrantless searches into a home is unconstitutional in every situation?  For example, if a criminal has taken someone hostage in their own home, should the police be allowed to come into that person's home without a warrant to try to save that person's life?  Or should they have to wait 30 minutes for a warrant from a judge before they can come into the home and try to save the hostage?


They don't have to waste any time. A judge could text them a $#@!ing warrant these days. Also, in a hostage situation the cops usually don't just barge in or the hostage is dead anyway. So, plenty of time to get a warrant. You need a more ridiculous example.

----------


## Brett85

> So how did any of us survive up until 1850 or so?
> 
> "Police" are a fairly modern invention.


There were a lot less people in the United States in 1850 than there are now.  A county Sheriff and a few private citizen deputees aren't going to be able to maintain law and order in a city like Boston with a population of over 600,000 people.

----------


## Brian4Liberty

> But, you have to realize that no federal judge actually shares your interpretation of the 4th amendment.  All federal judges have said that there are exceptions, particularly when there is a threat of *imminent* danger to the public.


What's the definition of "imminent" today?

IIRC, Obama, Holder, Graham and McCain had moved the goalposts on that word such that sitting in a Starbucks drinking coffee was an "imminent threat".

----------


## Brett85

> You need a more ridiculous example.


I already mentioned a homeowner who's on vaction and who's home caught on fire, and whether firefighters should have to get the homeowner's permission before they can come into his home to put out the fire.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I do understand that sometimes the police abuse our rights rather than defend them.  I'm not arguing otherwise.  But, if the police didn't exist, there would be a far worse abuse of our rights.  Private individuals would be violating our rights every single day, including our right to be alive.


That is your opinion, and not a terribly difficult one to rebut.

----------


## TheTexan

> There were a lot less people in the United States in 1850 than there are now.  A county Sheriff and a few private citizen deputees aren't going to be able to maintain law and order in a city like Boston with a population of over 600,000 people.


Cops should be held to the same laws as citizens.  True/false?

Just curious.  This thread isn't going anywhere anyway.

----------


## Brett85

> They don't have to waste any time. A judge could text them a $#@!ing warrant these days. Also, in a hostage situation the cops usually don't just barge in or the hostage is dead anyway. So, plenty of time to get a warrant. You need a more ridiculous example.


Yeah, I do see what you and others are saying.  You raise a valid point regarding a slippery slope.  It's just that I've seen situations where there have been far worse abuses than what happened in this situation.  There have been situations where the police have shot innocent people in these kind of situations, which makes what happened in Boston pretty tame compared to what has happened in past situations.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> So how did any of us survive up until 1850 or so?
> 
> "Police" are a fairly modern invention.


The wild, untamed people were killing each other off so fast that the benevolent federal government stepped in and repopulated the lands, and then put these police in place to protect us.

----------


## Brett85

> That is your opinion, and not a terribly difficult one to rebut.


I think it is.  What you and others don't seem to realize is that there are private individuals who threaten our lives and our liberties just as much as the government does.  The government is not the only entity or only group of people that is capable of taking away our liberties.

----------


## Anti Federalist

> There were a lot less people in the United States in 1850 than there are now.  A county Sheriff and a few private citizen deputees aren't going to be able to maintain law and order in a city like Boston with a population of over 600,000 people.


So, all that says is that freedom dies, the more people there are around.

I was already well aware of that.

----------


## Brett85

> The wild, untamed people were killing each other off so fast that the benevolent federal government stepped in and repopulated the lands, and then put these police in place to protect us.


The federal government doesn't have anything to do with state and local police forces.

----------


## TheTexan

> The federal government doesn't have anything to do with state and local police forces.


lol

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I already mentioned a homeowner who's on vaction and who's home caught on fire, and whether firefighters should have to get the homeowner's permission before they can come into his home to put out the fire.


If it is to the point that the neighbors notice the house is on fire and call the fire department, they aren't going to go inside anyway.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> I think it is.  What you and others don't seem to realize is that there are private individuals who threaten our lives and our liberties just as much as the government does.  The government is not the only entity or only group of people that is capable of taking away our liberties.


Nor is it the only group capable of protecting them. In fact, it is the least effective group at doing so.

----------


## TheTexan

> The federal government doesn't have anything to do with state and local police forces.


Took 3 seconds to search, this is the first result:

DHS & DoD Funding Increases Militarization of Local Police Depts Nationwide

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has published an educational document into the obvious militarization of local police departments (LPDs). The ACLU explains: “American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war.”

Through federal funding state and LPDs are being trained in military tactical operations and gaining access to military grade weapons to be used against the average American citizen.

Earlier this month, the ACLU “filed more than 255 public records requests to determine the extent to which local police departments are using federally subsidized military technology and tactics that are traditionally used overseas.” The purpose was to understand the extent of the militarization of LPDs and their impact on the Constitutional rights of Americans.

Karen Dansky, attorney for the ACLU explained: “Equipping state and local law enforcement with military weapons and vehicles, military tactical training, and actual military assistance to conduct traditional law enforcement erodes civil liberties and encourages increasingly aggressive policing, particularly in poor neighborhoods and communities of color. We’ve seen examples of this in several localities, but we don’t know the dimensions of the problem.”

In New Hampshire, Mayor Kendall Lane proudly accepted $285,933 in federal grant money from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to acquire an armored vehicle manufactured by Lenco Industries.

Using the war on crime and drugs as an excuse, the Pentagon has been arming LPDs since the 1990s with the assistance and approval of local elected officials.

DHS grants to LPDs have totaled $34 billion as defense contracts continue to come without fail. Riot gear, military-grade weapons and training are becoming common place in cities and townships across the nation.

Timothy Lynch, director of the criminal justice project at the Cato Institute, states: “What is most worrisome to us is that the line that has traditionally separated the military from civilian policing is fading away. We see it as one of the most disturbing trends in the criminal justice area — the militarization of police tactics.”

William Landsdowne, police chief and member of the Major Cities Chiefs Association (MCCA) asserts that police officers are not becoming militarizes; they are being trained to be better combat the “better armed” suspects. Landsdowne proudly admits: “If we had to take on a terrorist group, we could do that.”

In small towns, LPDs are being given massive amounts of military grade equipment that would facilitate warring in battlefield conditions. Under the Department of Defense Excess Property Program (DDEPP) imitated by the Department of Defense (DoD) LPDs are being militarized under the guise of maintaining public safety.

All LPDs across the nation are encouraged by DoD to apply for federal grants and participate in the program.

Defense armory issued to LPDs is:

• Four-wheel drive military vehicles
• Mobile command centers
• Armored personal vehicles
• SWAT team clothing and armory
• Ballistic helmets and safety vests
• BDU (flame retardant) clothing
• Laptops and other computer equipment
• Surveillance tools for intelligence gathering operations

LPDs are public benefit corporations contracted by the City Council to preform police services and securitize the city they are hired in. This is the exchange of a local government hiring a private security firm to stabilize the local population and generate revenue for the city through tickets, arrests and recording infractions. However, this does not include upholding local laws, as the County Sheriff’s Office is elected to take charge of.

In 2012, Louis F. Quijas, Assistant Secretary of the Office for State and Local Law Enforcement (OSLLE), for the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) explained the purpose of the OSLLE as a front “office that provided coordination and partnership with state, local, and tribal law enforcement.”

The OSLLE was recommended by the 9/11 Commission. It was created to “lead the coordination of DHS-wide policies relating to state, local, and tribal law enforcement’s role in preventing acts of terrorism and to serve as the primary liaison between non-Federal law enforcement agencies across the country and the Department.”

Intelligence is disseminated through OSLLE to LPDs or “non-Federal law enforcement partners” to keep information flowing through initiatives such as the “If You See Something, Say Something™”, the Blue Campaign, the Nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting (SAR) Initiative (NSI), and the Department’s efforts in Countering Violent Extremism.

OSLLE consistently works with LPDs on education, actionable information, operations and intelligence for the purpose of their part in the operations of the DHS with regard to keeping “our homeland safe”.

OSLLE also works as a liaison between LPDs to maintain DHS leadership and considerations of “issues, concerns, and requirements of state, local, and tribal law enforcement during budget, grant, and policy development processes.”

In early 2012, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) released a report entitled “Homeland Security and Intelligence: Next Steps in Evolving the Mission” which outlined in part on how to redirect efforts of the federal government from international terrorism toward home-grown terrorists and build a DHS-controlled police force agency that would control all cities and towns through the use of local police departments.

DHS maintains that “the threat grows more localized” which necessitates the militarization of local police in major cities in the US and the training of staff from local agencies to make sure that oversight is restricted to the federal government.

Private security corporations have been parading as public servants policing cities and towns across America without the knowledge of the average citizen for quite some time. Although they wear the same badges as LPDs of the past, these private security firms are not there to uphold peace or enforce any laws and city ordinances. Just like any other corporation, they seek out opportunities to collect revenue for the benefit of the city that hired them.

http://www.occupycorporatism.com/dhs...ts-nationwide/

(yes, yes, occupy etc etc)

----------


## LibertyEagle

> I think it is.  What you and others don't seem to realize is that there are private individuals who threaten our lives and our liberties just as much as the government does.  The government is not the only entity or only group of people that is capable of taking away our liberties.


They can't do it now, either.  The only reason we have law and order is because most people choose to act in that manner.

----------


## Brett85

> lol


Well, the federal government didn't create state and local police forces.  I suppose there is some funding involved.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> There were a lot less people in the United States in 1850 than there are now.  A county Sheriff and a few private citizen deputees aren't going to be able to maintain law and order in a city like Boston with a population of over 600,000 people.


How about 600,000 VOLUNTEER deputies?  Would that do it?

Too much power in the hands of too many individuals I imagine...

----------


## LibertyEagle

> The federal government doesn't have anything to do with state and local police forces.


Where were you when Fusion Centers started popping up everywhere?

----------


## Brett85

> How about 600,000 VOLUNTEER deputies?  Would that do it?
> 
> Too much power in the hands of too many individuals I imagine...


Obviously not going to happen when people have full time jobs.

----------


## TheTexan

> Obviously not going to happen when people have full time jobs.


I have a full time job, but that doesn't prevent me from taking responsibility for my own safety.  (And, by extension, the safety of my office, to some extent)

----------


## Brett85

> Where were you when Fusion Centers started popping up everywhere?


What I should've said is that the federal government didn't create the police.  The comment I was responding to said that the federal government created the police.

----------


## Brett85

> I have a full time job, but that doesn't prevent me from taking responsibility for my own safety.  (And, by extension, the safety of my office, to some extent)


Edit:  Never mind, I'm not exactly sure what you mean, and I've been accused of distorting what other people say.

----------


## idiom

> Then what should have been done instead?  You guys just act like this was just any common situation with any common criminal, but it simply wasn't.  This wasn't a situation where the police, the mayor, and the Governor had time to all meet together in a building and come to a decision on what the best course of action should be to capture the suspect.  They had to make a decision in the heat of the moment to figure out how to catch someone who was suspected of murdering three people and injuring hundreds of others.  As I've said many times, I don't agree with everything the police did in this situation, but I understand why they did it given the situation that existed and that they didn't have time to sit around in a meeting room and come up with the best course of action to take.


It took a lot of someones sitting around in a room a lot of time to forward plan a response like that.

They very deliberately didn't use any of the proven effective traditional methods.

----------


## bunklocoempire

> Obviously not going to happen when people have full time jobs.


Would you feel safer with 600,000 part-timers _every where_ or a full time police force at whatever the current numbers are 10 minutes away and accountable to a lower standard than the part-timers?

Thread drift but not.

----------


## Brett85

> Would you feel safer with 600,000 part-timers _every where_ or a full time police force at whatever the current numbers are 10 minutes away and accountable to a lower standard than the part-timers?
> 
> Thread drift but not.


What are the chances that 600,000 people would volunteer to be citizen deputees?  Aren't we talking about an entirely volunteer job in which these people wouldn't even get paid?

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> What are the chances that 600,000 people would volunteer to be citizen deputees?  Aren't we talking about an entirely volunteer job in which these people wouldn't even get paid?


In my little town, we have volunteer firemen, they don't get paid.  Surely enough could be found in a larger town or a city that would volunteer.

----------


## ClydeCoulter

> It took a lot of someones sitting around in a room a lot of time to forward plan a response like that.
> 
> They very deliberately didn't use any of the proven effective traditional methods.


And they didn't get anymore done with all of that force.  I think the boat owner found the kid.

----------


## TheTexan

> And they didn't get anymore done with all of that force.  I think the boat owner found the kid.


They did $#@! up his boat pretty damn good though.  I hope he had cop insurance.

----------


## Brett85

Rand Paul:  "If someone is actively running around with a gun you don't need a warrant"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCzI3Rsq8w  3:22 mark.

----------


## TheTexan

> Rand Paul:  "If someone is actively running around with a gun you don't need a warrant"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCzI3Rsq8w  3:22 mark.


He's referring to drones and passive forms of surveillance.  Not knocking down doors without a warrant.

----------


## idiom

> And they didn't get anymore done with all of that force.  I think the boat owner found the kid.


Thus the speculation as to the motive.

By all measures of effectiveness, what was done in Boston is the opposite of good police work. It was 0% effective.

----------


## JK/SEA

> Rand Paul:  "If someone is actively running around with a gun you don't need a warrant"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCzI3Rsq8w  3:22 mark.


'running around shooting a gun' is not the same as hiding in someones closet.

----------


## The Gold Standard

> Rand Paul:  "If someone is actively running around with a gun you don't need a warrant"
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBCzI3Rsq8w  3:22 mark.


A warrant for what? Is he saying if you are running around in your home with a gun the police can bust in? I guess it wouldn't shock me, but I doubt that's what he said.

----------


## TheTexan

> A warrant for what? Is he saying if you are running around in your home with a gun the police can bust in? I guess it wouldn't shock me, but I doubt that's what he said.


Fortunately, that wasn't what he said.

----------


## Brett85

> He's referring to drones and passive forms of surveillance.  Not knocking down doors without a warrant.


It isn't clear what he's saying, but he congratulated the police at the beginning of the segment and didn't criticize them for anything.

----------


## TheTexan

> It isn't clear what he's saying


Well, I guess I'll let others be the judge of that.  I, personally, think it's _crystal_ clear that Rand was *not* advocating busting down doors without a warrant.

----------


## Brett85

By the way, I'm not saying that I'm comfortable with the idea of house to house searches.  I'm just saying I understand why it happened in this situation.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, I guess I'll let others be the judge of that.  I, personally, think it's _crystal_ clear that Rand was *not* advocating busting down doors without a warrant.


Well, the conversation was about drones, so maybe so.  But, the fact that he advocated any surveillance without a warrant shows that his view of the 4th amendment isn't exactly the same as the view that others here have been expressing.

----------


## TheTexan

> By the way, I'm not saying that I'm comfortable with the idea of house to house searches.  I'm just saying I understand why it happened in this situation.


Because it was such an extraordinary situation.  (Two guys with an AR and a few pipe bombs)

----------


## kcchiefs6465

> I uploaded another video.  This time of a collection of news clips about the house-to-house raids.  They were absolutely not voluntary.  Just listen to the victims.


Plus rep.

----------


## otherone

> So you think the police would just believe everyone who said that they searched their own house?  They wouldn't consider the possibility that the suspect had friends or relatives who were harboring him in their home?


LOLZ. Then how would "voluntary" searches be effective?

----------


## otherone

> But, if the police didn't exist, there would be a far worse abuse of our rights.  Private individuals would be violating our rights every single day, including our right to be alive.


It is PRECISELY this type of fear-mongering that powers Leviathan, that justifies the alienation of our unalienable Rights due to exigent circumstances, and cedes our RIGHT to self-defense to a third party.   SHEEP.

_A Free Society is one where the individual is not denied the consequences of his behavior  
_

----------


## Sam I am

> In a situation like what happened in Boston, why would I not want to allow the police to search my home?  I would've wanted to help the police in any way I could to catch a brutal murderer who was responsible for murdering an innocent 8 year old kid and injuring hundreds of others.


Unless you think that they're actually going to find the suspect at your house, then what's the point?

----------


## Sam I am

> If the cops came to your door and asked permission to search for the suspect, would you let them?


The thing that I was getting at with this was that about 90% of people would "consent" to a search, not because they thought that the police would find the suspect in their home, but because they were afraid of suspicion falling on themselves.

even if they give Consent in such a situation, they're actually giving it under a form of duress.

----------


## AGRP



----------


## Origanalist

> 


Better check the batteries on that thing...just sayin. It went off a little late.

----------


## Dr.3D

> So you think the police would just believe everyone who said that they searched their own house?  They wouldn't consider the possibility that the suspect had friends or relatives who were harboring him in their home?


It's against the law to lie to the police.  People wouldn't want to get in trouble doing that.  It's also against the law to harbor a fugitive.  That would be two counts somebody would be liable for if they didn't tell the truth when they said they checked their own home.

----------


## KingNothing

> The thing that I was getting at with this was that about 90% of people would "consent" to a search, not because they thought that the police would find the suspect in their home, but because they were afraid of suspicion falling on themselves.
> 
> even if they give Consent in such a situation, they're actually giving it under a form of duress.



If the response to the police action is any indication, people did not feel intimated.  They welcomed the authoritarianism.  That is the frightening part.

----------


## Carson

> And they didn't get anymore done with all of that force.  I think the boat owner found the kid.


and more than likely found him sooner with out all of the guns pointed at people and their privacy violated.

----------


## Aratus

there has been a rather short press conference with the three police officers who were first on the scene when the 19 year old was spotted

----------


## Anti Federalist

Bump

----------

