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

[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 fuck 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.