OK, here is a hypothetical situation involving home searches and terrorists

[Dreamer Tatum]

Suppose you and your family live on a cul-de-sac of 10 homes. It is widely reported and generally agreed that fugitive bombers, already responsible for multiple dead and wounded, are in your neighborhood and have shown absolutely no regard for human life, including their own.

You don't know where they are, but you and your neighbors have reason to believe that these people are not only in your neighborhood, but somewhere on your block.

The police come, armed to the teeth. They identify themselves and start searching homes. Your neighbors begin screeching, "FUCK NO! GET A WARRANT! I HAVE RIGHTS!!!" And so do the owners of the 8 other homes.

You, being a good Democrat, have always favored the collective good, sometimes having to do or accept things that you might not choose for yourself so that others may have and/or be safe.

When the cops come to your door, having been turned away by 9 other homeowners still seething about potential search with no warrant, what do you do? How safe do you feel?

[hlthe2b]

1. If there are truly exigent circumstances (such as knowing there is highly dangerous bombing suspect

LEO do NOT need a search warrant. The other homeowners would NOT be able to turn them away.

Google Exigent Circumstances and Search warrants to learn more.

[Warpy]

2. Well, unless I had the triple beam balance out

and had been cutting smack and bagging it up in my living room, I'd let them in.

Sometimes it is for the greater good.

[Dreamer Tatum]

3. THANK YOU. nt

[hlthe2b]

4. LOL... yeah, I guess embarassment over my lousy housekeeping wouldn't suffice...

[Pholus]

18. Aha, a variant of "I have nothing to hide, so..."

Just keep in mind that the cooperation motivated by your pure intent does not necessarily translate into a free pass in the eyes of your newly invited guests. They are looking for a crime or a criminal and accomplices and those sheltering the criminals -- and they will pursue any lead they can, aggressively if necessary. Let's hope that your domecile conforms perfectly to societal norms or else you will be answering a few more questions than you planned. You know, questions about those stacks of old electronic parts, lots of plants or indoor gardening tools, lots of pill bottles, alcohol, firearms, medical equipment, a chemistry set, cash lying about, more than one computer -- anything out of the mundane.

So feel good about your answer. It's what a proper member of society should do -- assist your local law enforcement. But at the same time keep in mind that many a civil rights abuse started with "I have nothing to hide so sure officer you can look in the trunk."

[Warpy]

20. When they were going door to door

Last edited Sun Apr 21, 2013, 06:30 PM - Edit history (1)

looking for Susan Saxe and Kathy Powers in the early 70s, I did tell them to slip the warrant under the door. They left.

The difference then was that Saxe and Powers were garden variety bank robbers and one of their colleagues had been the shooter. Public safety was not an issue.

In this case, I'd have let them in.

Knowing when to insist on your rights is a good thing.

[Pholus]

23. Absolutely.

Having had friends cooperate themselves into bad (and costly) situations has convinced me to be a bit more circumspect than blind cooperation. That's not an automatic no, nor is it an automatic yes.

[CBGLuthier]

22. and if the triple beam is instead a room full of ripe cannabis?

Hypothetically that is.

[gateley]

5. I let 'em in. As I've said, I WANT them to find the person, and if he's

hiding in my house or on my property, want THEM to be the ones to find him.

[Hekate]

6. "The house doesn't always look like this...

... sometimes it's worse, but sure, have a look."

Hekate

[Warpy]

21. Or...

"Sorry about the mess, but we live here." ----Roseanne

[rocktivity]

7. Given those cirucumstances, the police should evacuate the cul-de-sac

Last edited Mon Apr 22, 2013, 04:31 PM - Edit history (2)

like they do in hostage situations, pending natural disasters, and environmental emergencies.


rocktivity

[davidn3600]

8. Then couldn't you eliminate every right in the constitution by invoking the "collective good"

[elleng]

10. Not if you were rational.

The Constitution is all about the 'collective good.'

[davidn3600]

11. And what guarantee exists that we will always have a rational government?

[elleng]

14. None, but we must do our best.

For example, those with an arpaio 'running' things should take a different approach.

[elleng]

9. Glad they come to my home,

and REALLY PISSED at neighbors who cause the neighborhood to not be or feel safe.

[Fla Dem]

15. My sentiments exactly.

But I would fear that at least one of the "stand your ground neighbors" was being forced to block the police by the bad guys.

[elleng]

17. Always a scary possibility, Fla Dem.

[LWolf]

12. Assuming that I have the legal right to turn them away?

That's a whole bunch of assumptions for a hypothetical fantasy. Are we assuming the bombers are not, and have not, been in my home, and that I am neither a hostage nor an ally?

I will tell them: "I'm the only one home. You can come inside if you are respectful of my personal property and space, and leave it the way you found it. I'll be videotaping your 'search.' If I don't like what I see, the video will be distributed to the media."

I, being a good supporter of civil liberties, do not characterize my neighbors' demanding their rights as "screeching," and do not appreciate the violation of my privacy. I do not view giving up civil liberties as the "collective good."

In this hypothetical fantasy, I'm going to assume that I'm aware of the situation, that I know they are coming; I'm going to have a lawyer present when they knock on that door, if possible. If not possible, then at least on the phone.

[woo me with science]

29. Good answer, especially,

I, being a good supporter of civil liberties, do not characterize my neighbors' demanding their rights as "screeching," and do not appreciate the violation of my privacy. I do not view giving up civil liberties as the "collective good."

What a manipulative OP.

[FarCenter]

13. I'd invite them in, break out the crackers and cheese, put on a pot of coffee, and keep them there

Until they had gotten the search warrants to search the other homes on the block.

I'd feel safer that way.

[woo me with science]

27. This is the correct answer. Unfortunately,

the OP is attempting to make the authoritarian case for suspending our basic civil liberties.

What a load of authoritarian garbage.

[FarCenter]

32. After Sandy we appreciated our police more.

Outpouring of Appreciation from Community Overwhelms Watertown Police

http://watertown.patch.com/articles/outpouring-of-appreciation-from-community-overwhelms-watertown-police

Looks like community police relations are fairly good in Watertown -- I couldn't find online police complaints.

[Newest Reality]

16. You have left

something out of your hypothesis.

If people are at home and the police come to the door, some simple questions would suffice, would they not, in place of a home invasion without a warrant?

Or are we not capable of ascertaining if our doors and windows had been locked, no sounds or suspicious activity were noticed, maybe our dog had been unperturbed, etc.?

Do we go merely, then, by assumptions and assertions by authority figures that change with the circumstances? Those would have to be along the lines that we are colluding with the criminal, ignorant of the state of our household, or under duress.

If we were under duress because our child was being held at gunpoint, we could signal our situation while saying what we were supposed to about that person not being there. The cops barging in, under those circumstances would only prove fatal for the hostage.

So, what are the criteria? Supposed safety vs. legally solid freedom?

[FarCenter]

26. If you were under duress, you would be trying to keep the police out, make them go away.

Few would have the presence of mind to signal the police that they were under duress.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

19. I did not realize that bending over at the whim of the authorities was a Democratic value

If I was confident of the state of my home (the bad guys were not there) I would thank them for their concern and turn them away. If I had outbuildings, I would say they could look in them if they wished.

Respecting the rule of law and requriing the police to do the same is a very Democratic thing to do

[woo me with science]

33. +10000

[frogmarch]

24. I'd hate it because

my house is a mess, but darn tootin' I'd let them search it! Absolutely! And I'd be plenty pissed at my high-horse neighbors.

[petronius]

25. I tell them that there's no one in my house that I don't know about, but they're perfectly

welcome to search around the outside where it actually is reasonable that a fugitive may have been able to sneak without my knowledge.

If they go on about their business without insisting on entrance to my and my neighbors homes, then I feel very safe - these are obviously professional police officers with common sense and a respect for civil rights...

[woo me with science]

28. What manipulative, authoritarian bullshit this post is.

"Screeching"? Really?

Your wording here is very interesting. Why do you ask if people would let the police in, rather than if they think the rights of all homeowners on the block against unreasonable searches and seizures should be stripped from them....because that is your real argument here, right? The point you are trying to make?

But then, of course, you probably wouldn't get the response you want.

But that's how the authoritarian manipulation goes, in posts like this.

[hunter]

31. It's happened to me. I politely told the police "NO."

This was just after I nearly stumbled into an armed gangster hiding in the shadows of my back porch.

The encounter startled him, it startled me. He ran off and jumped over the back fence, I went back into the house and locked the door.

Seconds later the police pounded on my front door, weapons drawn, wanting to run through my house.

I told them no, explained how the guy had already jumped over the back fence and what direction I figured he was heading.

I was very polite, just as I always am with the police.

I'm not sure how this case is any different. This turned out to be a scared injured kid with a gun hiding in a boat. Unpredictable and dangerous, yes, but I've seen worse.

There's no reason to let the police into your house if the mad bomber doesn't happen to be there.

[Hugabear]

34. I like how you're sticking to your authoritarian views

Again, doesn't surprise me