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

[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 fucking 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.