I think anyone who objects to their house being searched by cops looking for terrorists

[Dreamer Tatum]

should be on the 'ignore' list for police, fire, and EMT services.

That's just me, however. We all know that despite the dumb shit we believe, professionals will do their work
and keep us by and large safe from danger.

[Cleita]

1. I don't often agree with you but on this point I do. n/t

[whatchamacallit]

2. Idiocy.

n/t

[Fumesucker]

3. How Democratic of you n/t

[Dreamer Tatum]

6. Yeah, I recall that being in the Dem platform for 2012

"...and NO FUCKIN' COPS BANGIN' ON MY DOOR LOOKIN' FOR TERRORISTS, MANNNNNNNN!"

[Fumesucker]

8. How about if it was just a run of the mill murderer?

[Dreamer Tatum]

9. "Oh, Fumesucker, pipe down. It's not like your loved one

was killed by a terrorist. It was just a run of the mill murderer."

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. What would you say? "No, I don't care about run of the mill murderers being caught"?

Is your "how Democratic of you" comment sarcastic, or are you acknowledging that a typical Democract would cooperate with the search for a murderer?

[Fumesucker]

19. I could spit from one end of my home to the other longways if I really tried hard

And if I stretch I can touch the other two outside walls at the same time with a hand and a foot.

There is simply no way anyone else could be in my home and me not be aware of it.

I would step outside the door, close it behind me and say "no murderer here officers".

[muriel_volestrangler]

24. So you're saying you would cooperate with them

and you would expect others who have a sense of helping the community to help them too?

[Fumesucker]

37. I would not let them in my home, if that's what you are asking

I have what I consider good and sufficient reason for not completely trusting cops, I've posted about it fairly recently on DU and also in the past a couple of time. Suffice it to say that my daughter at 17 ended up with drug conviction on her criminal record without ever being arrested, arraigned or convicted of anything at all to do with drugs and it took a great deal of effort to get it expunged.

[muriel_volestrangler]

41. I'm establishing that you are willing to cooperate in the interest of the community

which you hadn't made clear, so far. You haven't answered if "how Democratic of you" was sarcastic or straightforward. Do you think the safety of the community can sometimes mean members have to drop a strict "my home is my castle" stance? Or is it better, in the long run, for people to stand on the principle of "I am an individual, and don't owe anything to the community at all"?

[Fumesucker]

52. There are a great many laws in this country that aren't remotely rational

And we have hundreds of thousands of people in prison and millions more whose life has been ruined due to those irrational laws.

I'm not putting myself in the position of giving permission to police to come in my home because then anything they find become admissible evidence against me if I should happen to be breaking one of those irrational laws and by no means am I saying that I am doing so.

Fix the laws, that includes laws that allow police to legally lie about what they are doing in the course of their interaction with the public, and I would be happy to invite them in.

In my mind police are a necessary evil and should be kept on a very tight leash by civilian authority, we all know that's not the case in many places in this country.

It's a problem so old that there is a Latin phrase to describe it.. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will watch the watchers?

In far too many communities in America there is no one watching the watchers and we all know it.

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. Is it reasonable to say you prefer this libertarian stance to the Democratic one, then?

And that you were being straightforward when you said "how Democratic of you"?

If you want the support of the community in the form of the emergency services, you need to give them support when they are protecting the community.

[Fumesucker]

61. As I said, I'll be happy to allow a search once the laws are made rational

I didn't realize that maintaining irrational laws was a Democratic issue.

How am I to know that the police are "protecting the community" and not pulling a scam to gain my permission to conduct a search for some other purpose? Remember, the police can and do often lie legally to the public in the course of their duties.

[muriel_volestrangler]

64. You could try paying attention to the news

then you'd have known there was a fugitive multiple murderer in the area. The Democratic issue is acknowledging that those who expect something from the state (eg police and emergency protection) have to cooperate with it when they are giving that protection to others.

[Fumesucker]

66. I pay zero attention to local news, don't even have a TV, no radio, don't read the paper

In fact I get the great majority of my news from DU, which is why I'm often far in advance of the actual news on national and international happenings.

And you are ignoring the fact that my personal experience leads me to have a rather strong distrust of police motives in some circumstances.

If it's truly a "hot pursuit" sort of issue the cops can search whether I give permission or not, what difference does it make in a practical sense if I don't give permission?

[muriel_volestrangler]

68. It's a question of if you think freeloading is fine, I guess

If cooperation with the state is only for other people, but you feel that you still deserve the full protection from it, then you can take the "not in my home" attitude.

As far as the news goes - it's not as if DU had been quiet about events in Boston. I'd say that very few people in Boston can have been unaware there had been a bombing at the marathon, by Friday morning, however they hear about events.

[Fumesucker]

72. I've already said I would be happy to cooperate if the laws were rational

You have not disagreed with me that we have irrational laws that have ruined millions of lives but that seems to be an issue you are loathe to deal with.

We aren't talking about Boston now, this OP was about a general principle and I'm stating a general principle.

The way the laws are now, if you run afoul of law enforcement they can set you up for a long prison term with ridiculous ease, everyone knows it happens. If you give permission for them to enter your property then they can plant a bag of cocaine or crack or meth or whatever (which you know they have access to) and it is admissible as evidence. If you don't give permission that planted bag would probably not be admissible.

As I said, my daughter ended up with a drug conviction on her record because she made some cops angry the night of her 17th birthday because she's quite outspoken and called them out on some bullshit they were doing to one of her friends. She never had any drugs, never was arrested for drugs, never arraigned for drugs and never convicted of a drug crime but when she went to get a concealed carry permit when she was about 23 she was denied because a conviction was on her record in the electronic database.

If she hadn't happened to marry the son of the #2 man in the local Sheriff's department in the meantime I don't think it would ever have come off her record because it took everything her father in law could do pulling every string available to a powerful and well connected high ranking police officer to get to the bottom of what happened. We certainly didn't have the resources to help her with something like that.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Your objectiuon to 'irrational' laws seems beside the point

What happened to your daughter (having a conviction on her record, despite never having been convicted) seems another matter entirely. That's about a false record, not a search.

I'm sorry that you've ended up in the mindset of "those cops will use this as the opportunity to plant evidence on me that they've been waiting for for years".

"If you don't give permission that planted bag would probably not be admissible. "

So if the law said that if they say they need to search your property for a fugitive, then they shouldn't be able to turn round and say "while were were there, we found ...", would you be happy to let them in?

[Fumesucker]

79. They can't if you don't give permission now

Of course if you don't have a video of you refusing permission there's a good chance you wouldn't be believed in court anyway.

We have informational posts here on DU on a fairly regular basis that say the safest thing in dealing with police is to say nothing at all, that anything you say can and will be used against you.

Letting cops just go through your home or car willy nilly is not a good idea in this day and age, they are not always your friend and there's always a non zero chance that such a search will end badly for you no matter if you are completely innocent of anything.

Most encounters I've had with police have been outstanding, they have been professional and helpful when needed and all that good stuff, but then I think of what happened to my daughter. That incident opened my eyes to the dark side of cops and it's the main reason I come across as very anti police. I'm really not anti police, I'm just damn wary of them now since I have been made painfully aware of their ability to fuck your life up beyond all recognition if they choose to do so for whatever reason.

I wave at the cops who drive by or who are on the side of the road when I'm riding my bike and most of the time they wave back, I'm not unfriendly at all and I'm always respectful and polite to them but I'm not letting them in my home.

[gcomeau]

34. And they would know you were doing that...

...because there really wasn't and not because, say, he was in there with a gun to someone's head after telling you to say that or else... or that you were saying that because you were an accomplice actively protecting him... by using the psychic powers they give all law enforcement officers during their training?

If they pursued him there they can go looking for him. in this case they pursued the guy into this neighborhood and had it so blockaded they had every reasonable expectation he had not escaped it, and the public safety concerns that apply to exigent circumstances in a hot pursuit applied. They were entirely legally justified in their tactics.

[Fumesucker]

38. I would not consent to them searching my home, period

Learned the hard way not to trust cops completely.

[oldhippie]

54. And then most likely they would search it anyway .....

... and give you the card of someone to call to complain. Despite all the "I'll sue the bastartds", it hardly ever happens.

[Fumesucker]

56. Yeah, I'm sure they would

The point is though that if you consent then anything illegal they find in the search is admissible as evidence, even if they planted it there.

I learned the hard way not to trust cops after an incident that happened to my daughter on her 17th birthday.

[Go Vols]

63. If you have nothing to hide

why not let them search?

[Mojorabbit]

7. I know right! nt

[woo me with science]

35. It starts by repeating it, over and over again,

as though it were completely natural. Presenting hypotheticals. See, your rights can be suspended. Any *rational* person would agree...

The propaganda is getting creepy, indeed.

[Logical]

4. Maybe the dumbest post today. Seriously. n-t

[Dreamer Tatum]

11. You kind of missed the point.

I don't actually believe that, but thank heavens that professionals don't give a shit what I believe - they'll do their work no matter what.

[leftyohiolib]

17. your post reminds me of when a guys house caught fire and the fire dept wouldnt put it out

cause the guy didnt pay the yearly fee (i mean the fee for fire services not taxes, which should have covered it ) and the shit-storm it caused here

[woo me with science]

36. Ugly, huh.

Authoritarianism always is.

[Bucky]

86. !

[treestar]

5. Especially one known to at that moment, be on the run

With a trigger finger and possibly bombs. It was fortunate to get out of it without more deaths. It was a possibility it would end with his suicide after taking out a few more people.

[rug]

10. This brings to mind another ignore list.

[LAGC]

15. +1

All the authoritarian cop-apologist posts are getting to be too much...

[gopiscrap]

47. I agree we pay WAY too much homage

to the fucking cops. These are folks who don't really give a shit about you...almost all of them are on an authoritarian kick and are maladjusted power hungry types!

[randome]

30. Then you're letting them get the last word.

[rug]

57. You're right.

Even though 29 people are ignoring me I ignore no one. Go figure.

[hunter]

12. If there were any terrorists in my house...

... I'd bring whatever was left of them to the door.

I've refused entrance to the police before, and I'll do it again.

[Hugabear]

14. Your post doesn't surprise me at all

There seems to be an undercurrent of authoritarian "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide" and "let's give up our privacy rights to make us all safer" postings here recently.

[southernyankeebelle]

27. You are right. It is amazing isn't it? Just like sheep. Then they will wonder why

happened to their rights. Just look at what happened at OWC when their rights were infringed upon. They arrested people for prostesting legally. Just watch out what you are willing to give up so easily. Just because we have nothing to hide doesn't mean your rights aren't being infringed on.

[woo me with science]

28. Indeed, the propaganda is getting "in your face" and creepy. nt

[Triloon]

16. Back when the Redcoats were searching Boston door to door

for Terrorists there were some Patriots with a different take on this. And when you add in that over 200 police shots were fired with only one hit, and that the boat Tsarnaev was hiding in was outside the search perimeter so all the door to door shit was pointless, well.... Your faith in the authorities is misplaced.

[boston bean]

18. Are you comparing two terrorists to Boston patriots of the late 1770's? nt

[Fumesucker]

20. They were "terrorists" according to the legally constituted authority at the time

"Treason doth never prosper: what's the reason? Why if it prosper, none dare call it treason." - John Harrington

[boston bean]

23. And??? I don't think I like the implication? These two terrorists

One day will be seen as something other than terrorists? Like patriots, here in the US?

[Fumesucker]

59. Do you disagree with what I said about the legally constituted authority at the time or not?

[Ikonoklast]

80. What the British were doing was actually illlegal.

That is why we had a revolution to begin with, they were breaking their own laws.

[Fumesucker]

82. American cops do that all the time and the government itself is not unknown to do so.

I do believe that torture is and has been illegal in the USA for quite a long time.

Next argument.

[Ikonoklast]

84. Warrantless searches, 'all the time'?

Show me.

[Fumesucker]

85. I passed some car on the highway a few months ago with three cruisers around it and stuff strewn

A guy in the back of one of the cruisers looking less than completely thrilled.

I seriously doubt the cops had a warrant for that.

It happens every day in America, a dog alerts on the car, maybe there's drugs, maybe the handler doesn't like the occupants of the car and wants to fuck with them.

Do you agree that torture has been illegal under US law for several decades now?

ETA: And which would you consider a more serious violation of rights, warrantless searches or torture?

[Triloon]

76. No, no, not at all.

The text of the 4th amendment -

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

- comes to us because of the abuses of search and seizure by officers of the English crown. At the time if there were warrants issued for a search they were General Warrants which pretty much means that the officer can search and seize anything at any time, under cover of the Crown. This was such a hot issue at the time that John Adams described it as "the spark in which originated the American Revolution.” (The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author. Volume: 1. Little, Brown. p. 59.) And it is still a touchy subject today. As it should be.

Our laws have provided exceptions to the warrantless searches prohibition, one is in the case of 'exigent circumstances', when there is an immediate emergency and persons lives, property, etc are in danger. And those exigent circumstances can be extended to cover an area and not just a specific location. But when the SWAT team comes to your door and tells you to put your hands on your head and exit to the street to be searched while an armed team rushes into your home to do a sweep search, no matter that you are certain that you and your family are alone in your home... well.... wouldn't it be nice to talk to John Adams about it.

[Dr. Strange]

21. Or anyone's who's ever pled the fifth.

Or asked to see a search warrant.
Or read the Constitution.

If you've got nothing to hide, then you don't need rights!

[southernyankeebelle]

22. My goodness it amazes me how willing you are to go like a sheep. Whatever happened at

knocking the door and ask if it would be ok to come in and search instead of treating everyone in the house like a criminal? As far as having EMT and police answering my call I would expect them to. I pay taxes to have those services just like everyoneelse.

[gopiscrap]

49. No kidding

[avebury]

25. I agree as long as they are professional about it.

I would most concerned about the two smaller buildings in my backyard and maybe the crawlspace. If I was at home from the time I woke up on Friday, I would feel pretty comfortable that the house itself would be ok (small, one floor, two small dogs that never let a chance to alert pass them by - LOL!). I would want to have a chance to put my cat in her carrier (not knowing how long they would leave the door open) and leash the dogs. I would figure it to be a good potty break time. I would expect them to be respectful of the public and get in and out and move on to the next house.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

26. Those who would trade the short term illusion of safety for their rights deserve neither

A poor paraphrase, but you get the idea...

[woo me with science]

29. How surprising.

[tralala]

31. You’re Eight Times More Likely to be Killed by a Police Officer than a Terrorist

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/06/fear-of-terror-makes-people-stupid.html

[pipoman]

32. Democrats are usually pretty serious about civil rights/liberties...usually...

[Fumesucker]

91. Civil rights yes, civil liberties not so much

I sometimes think some Democrats just want to drag everyone down to some low level of civil liberties so we can all be "equal".

[HighSpringsFL]

39. Okay, so I am not trying to ruffle feathers on my first post on this form, okay, but let me ask you

this...

I get that we are all intellectuals here. I get that a high percentage of the people here probably have a very good grasp on procedural law and civil liberties. I get that a good majority of the people here know exactly what they have to do in an emergency and what they DON'T have to do in an emergency.

But those of you who seem to be trying to disparage the people that were actually IN The situation might need to get a better grasp on reality. If there were actually gunmen https://www.facebook.com/video/embed?video_id=10152778880075249 outside your house firing machineguns and a police officer wanted to come in a little while later and check things out, would you really be in the mindset to yell "NO! GET OUT OF HERE YOU FASCIST!" I would probably be willing to bet the majority of the people would gladly allow a badge and gun wearing 'good guy' into their house to check things out and make sure they were safe.

Let's remember guys. This is BOSTON we're talking about. This is not some town in Florida or Texas. It's Boston. These people were scared and yeah they probably allowed some of their civil liberties to be stepped on a little. But I see this as no different than a Tornado or Hurricane warning.

I didn't see any police beating people because they were 'out past curfew!". What I saw was a police force ASKING (not telling) people to stay safe and in their homes while two crazies with machine guns and hand grenades were wreaking havok. And let's not forget something, guys, they caught BOTH people within hours or a day of showing their pictures on television. That has to count for something, doesn't it?

[ellisonz]

69. What are you trying to say about the people of Boston?

Let's remember guys. This is BOSTON we're talking about. This is not some town in Florida or Texas. It's Boston. These people were scared and yeah they probably allowed some of their civil liberties to be stepped on a little. But I see this as no different than a Tornado or Hurricane warning.

Because if you're trying to say what I think you're saying then the people of Boston have some sharp words for you Florida.

[Apophis]

40. Biggest fail of a post I've seen all day.

[MrSlayer]

42. Fuck it. Why even give them a choice?

Just kick the door in and do what you want because "terror" and "freedom".

The willingness of the fearful to give up their rights is unbelievable to me.

What a cowardly people we have become.

[texanwitch]

45. What would happen if someone was on vacation or just not at home.

How would the police enter then?

What if someone had a big dog to control.

My dog would have been really upset.

Just stay terror and everything is Ok?

[MrSlayer]

48. That's my point.

Just saying terror shouldn't cause people to lose their minds and willingly, slavishly give up their rights.

As to your questions, they shouldn't be allowed to enter any house without permission.

They'd probably kill your dog, bastards.

[texanwitch]

51. My dog would have went crazy trying to protect me.

I wonder if everyone was at home?


I remember hearing that families with little kids were forced out of the house.


The little kids had to be scared.


I have a hard time believing all the cops were so nice and ask please may we come in.

[aikoaiko]

43. Is that how civil liberties are supposed to work?

: shrug:

[LWolf]

44. I think that's a simplistic

characterization; an example of limited, overly-simplistic thinking that allows no room for ambiguity, complexity, or nuance.

[LeftInTX]

46. I'm one of those easy going types that pretty much respect police officers

The odds are if someone didn't want to let the cops in they may have had issues such as drugs lying around etc. These people still need to be allowed to call the police, EMS etc.

I know what you mean by anti-govt types and how via the GOP they want to rid society of public services. It's a challenge to create a learning situation where the anti-govt types will be totally inconvenienced by lack of govt.

[kudzu22]

50. If you are punished for exercising your rights

do you really have any rights at all?

[oldhippie]

53. Most people are sheep ......

.... and do whatever they are told by people with guns. Even progressives.

[neverforget]

55. Fear works

and this post is an example of it.

[Arctic Dave]

58. Who cares about the constitution. Do whatever you want W.

[idwiyo]

62. Absolutely! And there should be CCTV cameras in EVERY room in EVERY house constantly

recording what's going on. That way police (and everyone else who needs to know) can have access to the information they might need.

After all, if you have nothing to hide, why would you object to constant surveillance?

Also, I think each household should be taxed for upkeep of digital storage and some extra to help maintain the databases that will store and process surveillance data.



P.S. just in case: ^^^^ sarcasm ^^^^

[Moses2SandyKoufax]

65. After all, it's for our protection! n/t

[idwiyo]

70. Think how easy it would be to solve crimes! And to prove an alibi!

[reformist2]

67. If you've done nothing wrong, you've got nothing to fear!!

[RedCappedBandit]

71. What the hell is this crap?

[La Lioness Priyanka]

73. no. nt

[NYC Liberal]

74. I don't object to my house being searched. Bring a warrant signed by a judge and I will be more than

happy to open my doors to the police.

Shouldn't be a problem if there is actual evidence to necessitate a search. If there isn't such evidence, why is my house being searched?

[Kurska]

77. So I couldn't use services my tax money pays for, because I won't waive my 4th amendment rights?

That sounds fair.

[Bonobo]

78. Fuck that.

Holy shit. What a stupid fucking scary fucking idiotic post.

So the police demand to come into my house saying they are looking for a terrorist and despite the fact that I KNOW there is no terrorist hiding in my house, I HAVE TO LET THEM IN?

"Oh ignore the mess and the bong on the table, please rummage around until you're fully satisfied gentlemen! And please refold my wife's underwear after your rifle through the drawers. Thanks."

[morningfog]

81. What a stupid and inflaming way to frame it.

You sound like a right winger, as per usual.

[Cali_Democrat]

83. Ridiculous. n/t

[Bucky]

87. I love these tough solutions to problems that don't exist.

I think if anyone tries to destroy the sun, we should ban them from the beach. Such people don't deserve to enjoy a sunny day when they've already tried to destroy the sun for the rest of us. I don't care who I offend with this brave pronouncement.

[EmeraldCityGrl]

88. I suppose when they want to put a chip in

your arm you won't have a problem with that either.

You have nothing to hide except your rights and dignity.

[jsr]

89. Yep. Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.

If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear.

[Demo_Chris]

90. I think you might have accidentally posted this on the wrong forum. nt