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

[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?

Never heard of it...

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 bullshit 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 fucker 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 fucker 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/2013/02/19/michael-grover-aurora-res_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/2013/02/19/michael-grover-aurora-res_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?