So much for "Voluntary" lock-down and searches in Boston.

[Savannahmann]

What we saw in Boston was the exercise in Martial law, where the Constitution was absolutely sundered, shredded, and then thrown away. Now, I know we've heard from people in Boston who swore it was Voluntary. Answer me this, does " target="_blank">this video look Voluntary to you?

<iframe width="420" height="315" src="

" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There is no questions asked about being allowed to search, there are only demands for compliance. Once the people are obviously identified as not the suspect, what happens? Continued demands to keep their hands up. This is the vision of surrender to Unconstitutional actions by our law enforcement. This is not protecting the populace. This is the way it should never be in our nation. The Boston bomber won, and in the aftermath, we all lost.

[elleng]

1. Sorry,

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022713665

[Savannahmann]

4. Watch the video. Does that look Voluntary to you?

It certainly doesn't look like anything but a raid in force on innocents, with weapons pointed at innocents, and there were no questions on the tape like can I come in? There were only demands, and the threat of a rifle in your face. That is by definition not Voluntary.

[thucythucy]

81. This video has been posted here again and again

and again.

Always without context, explanation, followup, always with the same quasi-hysterical assertions of impending fascism.

Would you please check out the answers to some of the other threads posted on precisely this same topic, using this same video, now days old, before you start another one? Some of us are tired of answering the same old bullshit again and again.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. I wonder if any of the police drove over the posted speed limits while they were searching?

[whistler162]

126. They likely jay walked also!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

127. Darned cops! Who do they think they are, breaking the laws they demand the rest of us follow!

[Trajan]

3. What utter nonsense ...

You, Alex Jones and Glenn Beck ... Birds of a feather ...

[Savannahmann]

7. Then help me understand.

Was that video one of Voluntary compliance?

[Junkpet]

14. Yes...

...it appears they do ask and they do not force their way in. It's possible they don't use "please" and "thank you", but in this sort of a situation the police can't blindly trust anyone or they put their lives and the lives of the citizens in danger. There's absolutely no surprise that these people would be asked to keep their hands up and frisked down. At that point in the operation there was no certainty that these two brothers weren't part of a larger cell and could have possible been harboring the fugitive. I'm not saying it looks pleasant, but I can understand the procedures. Safety first.

[Savannahmann]

16. Yes they ask.

With commands like Open the door. Hands up. And Come out here, keep your hands up. What would not asking look like? Is that when they shoot first, and then say hands let me see your hands?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. You have plenty of options.

When the SWAT team approaches, weapons leveled, looking for terrorists that have killed children, shot cops and thrown bombs to elude capture it is fair to say that hiding your hands, obscuring yourself from their sight and making sudden movements are options available to you.

It's not very smart, but it is optional.

[Junkpet]

21. Well said

[Bragi]

103. Good one!

Heavily-armed police locking down cities and doing warrantless house-to-house searches are quite the laff.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

110. Searching house-to-house for a suspect that takes hostages and throws bombs is not

unreasonable.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

77. They burst through the door...and don't pay for the repair...

you are looking for a problem that doesn't exist in this particular situation.

[Robb]

5. Well, this video certainly proves

absolutely nothing.

Can I have my three minutes back, please?

[zappaman]

6. I miss UNREC. n/t

[PeaceNikki]

11. me, too

[tammywammy]

13. My first thought. n/t

[JoePhilly]

8. Can you post another video on this topic? I've seen yours about 100 times on DU already.

I mean, given the police were going house to house scaring people to death, certainly some one else captured the video of it, other than this one.

And yet, this one video is the only one I've seen posted on DU, and its been posted about 100 times.

I tried to find another such video using "the Google" ... and I found this ...

Those people look PISSED at the cops, don't they?

[Floyd_Gondolli]

9. Here we go again

[Rex]

10. You know I would give some credence to your rage if only

I had not SEEN LIVE VIDEO FOOTAGE of people walking around Boston and cars driving down the streets! That would be completely impossible under martial law and everyone knows it!

Also, why is it we don't hear Bostonians (many post here) in here writing thread after thread of said tyrannical conditions? You still think maybe the 'secret police' are there in Boston, making sure no one gets on the Internets to write about the Red Dawn reboot?

What a fantasy some have created out of this.

Thanks for trying!

[Savannahmann]

19. No, I think that it is acceptance of a state of affairs as the new normal.

We have TSA groping people, for our protection. Before 9-11 we would have rioted before we tolerated that. Now, it's for our safety, and it's all good. We have Homeland Security running around in armored cars. Cars that are refurbished military mine proof armored vehicles. They brag that inside, they can shoot out in all directions. That scares me, and it used to scare Liberals all over the nation.

We have police who pull out fully automatic assault rifles at the drop of a hat. Twenty years ago, the Police were armed with shotguns, and pistols, and they did plenty of damage. Only a handful of officers had that kind of firepower, and we protested them back in the day. Now, everyone has tactical vests, helmets, and a machine gun, and that is ok, because it's for our protection.

I can easily remember a time when we would have protested that kind of heavy handed police work. We led the charge to get those damned cops who threw a beating on Rodney King. We brought change to the world, change for the better. Now, it's all going away, and we cheer the cops who run around like storm troopers and celebrate their violations of the constitution, because its for our safety.

I don't cheer. I shake my head and wonder when we'll wake up, and return to the principles we once held as dearly as we held our children. We have pro gun progressives now. We have so watered down our ideals that it is barely a broth, when it was once a thick stew of idealism.

Perhaps I am the one who needs to change. Perhaps I need to join the NRA, and buy a damned gun and go hunting. I can go out and cheer the cops who drive by, and when called for the jury, announce proudly that the accused obviously did it, because the Cops are angels in uniform who never do anything wrong. BS.

[Rex]

97. So because things change, it disturbs you greatly?

That is fine, I can understand that and hear it from a lot of people. So what was that thick stew of idealism? Why do you think you are the speaker of all Liberals accross the nation? What makes you that special one and not like all the others that fear Big Brother? We all fear Big Brother, but there was no martial law in Boston...sorry to burst your bubble.

Why would you join the NRA just to go hunting, that makes no sense. Why would you cheer cops that drive by, that makes no sense.

I think I am correct and you cannot handle the fact that it was not martial law so start sloganeering as soon as you start to post a reply.

No thanks, you don't speak for this Liberal and seem to not be able to cope with change well - not very progressive of you, but carry on.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

131. Wrong.

You know nothing of which you speak. And where do you live, exactly?
"Dr. Frist, Dr. Frist, paging Dr. Frist"

[wercal]

12. A man near where I live killed three people...

...and jumped out of his car near my home.

My house was inside the 'perimeter'; and, I had to prove I lived there to get past a roadblock.

I spent the night with doors locked of course...and the drone of helicopters above. The manhunt was on for a desperate murderer - and they found him the next morning.

Not once did I ever consider it a possibility that I would have a squad of SWAT types bang on my door, point a gun in my family's faces, and extract me from my house.

So, based on past observation, the nature of this manhunt seems a bit different. I am actually shocked at so many on here who think its no big deal - I tend to think having a nervous cop point a loaded weapon in my face is a little over the top...especially if I don't look like a scrawny teenage terrorist. I really wouldn't have been 'ok' with that.

[Savannahmann]

20. I was standing in my front yard.

When a Deputy ran by asking if a guy had run by wearing handcuffs. I overheard his radio call a short while later, the baddie was in the backseat of the car, and managed to get away.

[tblue]

107. Reactions here are scary.

I think we should ALWAYS remain vigilant whenever anyone's Constitutional rights are compromised. Even in times of crisis, the Bill of Rights still is the law of the land. I'm sorry people are beating up on your op, Savannahmann. The frog is boiling and still doesn't know it or just doesn't care. And I mean REALLY. does. not. care.

[Savannahmann]

118. If I hadn't seen the fights back in the 1980's

As people protested in Los Angeles for the Police to have solid limits put upon them. Perhaps I wouldn't care as much. Oh well, I guess the days when we cared about civil rights are long gone. I have become an anachronism.

[arcane1]

15. If one were to apply critical thinking to this video, questions arise.

1. Is this video proven to be what it claims: footage of house-to-house searches for the marathon bombers?

2. Is there evidence that this video was filmed during that time period? (for example, could this be a video of some unrelated police activity, from some other time period?)

3. Is there footage of police behaving this way to any of the other houses on that street, including the house where the camera is located? The provocative title mentions "house-to-house raids" but only shows one house.

I freely admit, this video could be exactly what it claims to be, but it does not appear to offer evidence of such.

[Savannahmann]

17. Several things.

First, I did not know that this video had been posted. Second, There was a time when our party, our progressive movement, then called liberal, objected to this kind of police tactics. We used to cheer the ACLU, I had no idea that we were now joining the Rethugs in applauding this kind of gestapo tactics.

Third. Lumping me in with Right wing loonies because I object to the same thing is asinine. So tell you what. Those of you who think I am a right winger, do me a favor. Don't post if the Police do something like this to you. Because I will happily say that obviously you are either making it up, or you're just making something out of nothing, possibly at the urging of Beck.

I have always objected to Homeland Security doing their nonsense. I have long objected to the farce that is the TSA. Not because of any right wing tendencies, but because for some reason, I think it is unconstitutional to have this kind of crap going on. Back in the day, when I was getting ready for my first election, and we were fighting to stop George Bush the first from getting into the White House, Democrats would have agreed with me. Liberals would have agreed with me. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but the changing times hasn't changed my opinion of heavy handed police doing things like this. I cried when the PATRIOT ACT was signed, and I cheered when we elected President Obama, because then finally we were going to put an end to this Gestapo crap. Instead, we started cheering the Gestapo.

What do we stand for? Are we so determined to oppose some right winger that we will abandon Civil Rights? If this was NOT the Boston Bomber search, then we have an even bigger problem. Because at no time did I hear the words Search Warrant in that video.

Think about it gang. We stand for principals, or we stand for nothing. My opinions are based upon what I grew up to believe were solid liberal principals. Are you all leaving those behind.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. "There was a time when our party...objected to this kind of police tactics."

When did the Democratic Party ever object to using all available means to apprehend child-murdering, cop-killing, bomb-throwing fugitives? Please name one instance.

Nobody lost their civil rights. Based on statistical probability alone, I'll wager dollars to donuts that at least 1 house being searched had at least one criminal activity going on when the cops entered, i.e. pot-smoking; but the police not only declined to arrest but such evidence under those circumstances would never see the light of day in court. The police had one motivation: to protect our rights to live our lives peaceably without murderers savaging our society with bombs.

[jberryhill]

33. All kinds of things were "in plain sight"

And, you are right, as a search incident to lawful entry, anything they saw was fair game.

But I haven't heard of one arrest for what could be any number of crimes going on - from unregistered motor vehicles to bongs on the coffee tables.

[Demo_Chris]

42. Correction: this video shows someone losing their civil rights....

The "right" part of the phrase "civil rights" does not mean that government agents can ignore it at their convenience.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

44. "does not mean that government agents can ignore it at their convenience."

It wasn't at their convenience. It was an extreme situation and as soon as the situation passed the tactics ceased -- immediately.

[Demo_Chris]

93. I disagree. There was NO probably cause... (cont)

As the story was stated in another thread:

Someone thought they might have seen someone outside this residence, possibly filming but who knows.

The police did not know whether this report was correct, the police did not witness anyone doing anything-- let alone one of the suspects. The police saw no one doing anything illegal or even questionable. The residents of this home had every right to do anything they bloody well liked -- from wind sprints in the yard to unicylce practice in the streets -- without inciting a reaction like this.

The police responded to this report by using force against innocent homeowners. They assaulted them.

The CORRECT and reasonable response might -- note that word -- have been to knock on the door and ask if everyone was okay. Even this is arguably pushing it, but in this case it seems defensible given the situation. That's it. That's what we do here in America. We don't open fire on random vehicles as we saw in LA, and we don't show up with twenty man machine gun toting assault teams to attack and threaten homeowners for no legally defensible reason as we have seen here. That anyone is defending this is ludicrous.

My hope is that these home owners sue the holy hell out of this department, and every officer involved not only loses their job but faces charges for violating the civil rights of these innocent home owners.

[Th1onein]

43. WATCH OUT! THAT BABY MIGHT HAVE A GUN!

You don't point a gun at a man holding a baby, FFS. This was beyond the pale.

No, no and hell no. This does NOT belong in America.

Those who sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

[randome]

46. And the last comment on this video: "I'm so happy they're doing their job."

How would you, as an armed policeman searching for a crazed killer, have entered a home? Knocked on the door and politely asked, "Any babies in there? Okay, then I'm coming in with my gun down."

I've never been a police officer but I know they are trained to always be on the alert in an emergency situation like this.

And it sounded like at the end, Bostonians did not fault them for their professionalism.

It's their opinion that should hold more weight, IMO.

[Th1onein]

57. They shouldn't have come into private homes unless invited OR

had a search warrant. That's all.

And the first video? Didn't look voluntary to me. And why would they YELL at a guy who had just passed their inspection, to put his hands back up?

Nope, sorry, doesn't pass the smell test. You can rationalize it all you want to, but it doesn't pass the smell test.

This used to be America, where you were assured that things like pointing a gun at your baby just didn't happen. Not anymore. We are frogs, slowly being boiled to death.

Are you going to tell me that if this had happened under Bush's watch, we wouldn't have been screaming our heads off?

[randome]

62. LEOs raise their voices so there is no doubt of what's being said. Also to demonstrate authority.

So you're suggesting that they were being 'not nice' for, what, fun and games? It didn't look like anyone was having fun during that day.

And I still say it's up to Bostonians to decide this for themselves, not anyone else. And as a whole they seem very satisfied with how things went down.

[A-Long-Little-Doggie]

136. Yes, we do.

As WillPitt stated in another OP, we are quite used to staying in our homes during civic emergencies. Those who persist in thinking that we did what we were asked for fear of being shot have no idea how pissed we were that these fuckers dared to fuck with our Marathon. We stayed put because we wanted the shitheads who did this to be caught, and we cheered for and worried about the LEOs while they were out looking for them.

[Th1onein]

140. No, it's NOT up to just Bostonians. NO, it's NOT.

When you see someone else's rights being infringed upon, it's YOUR responsibility to say something. It's everyone's responsibility.

And it's not a matter of being "not nice." They had already ascertained that the people in the house were not the terrorists, and yet they forced them to keep their hands up, and down the line, they frisked them.

And, by the way, you don't point a gun at a baby. You just don't do that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. Everyone seems to know the emergency has passed except you and a few others.

[Th1onein]

141. I know that the emergency has passed, and I'm sure most others do, as well.

But I have a problem with these sort of tactics, which infringe upon our rights. INNOCENT Americans.

You should have a problem with it, too.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

142. The innocent Americans were not being treated as if they were criminals

They were being treated as if a dangerous criminal was at large in their neighborhood and might be hiding in a home with hostages. The police were not after the innocent people.

[Th1onein]

143. I'm sorry, but you are incorrect.

They WERE being treated as criminals. And, it's obvious from the video. If you can't see that, I'm sorry for you.

[Savannahmann]

65. When did it become all available means to pull people out of their homes at gunpoint to search?

When did that become an acceptable "all available means"? Sweet Gaia. Are you telling me we now support those Gestapo Tactics? The citizens in the house did not invite the police in, they here forced out at gunpoint. Even when the individuals were clearly identified as not the guy they were looking for, they held them at gunpoint with continued commands to keep their hands on their heads.

We have had bombings in this nations history many times. During the 40's, 50's, 60's, 70's, and on through every decade to present. Only now is it considered "reasonable" to have machinegun wielding police drag people out of their homes to search for the bomber. Only now is it considered normal to have that kind of overreaction. When did we oppose it? Liberal Lawyers argued against police abuses in every one of those decades. Liberal Judges agreed that the police were too heavy handed. Democrats pushed for Civil Rights investigations into the LAPD back in the 1960's, when the LAPD used those kinds of tactics to get instigators and rioters.

We banned police from beating confessions out of people, Liberals did that through the law and the courts. At the time, the police said they couldn't get convictions without those tactics. My Grandfather told me of those days, and how the police would literally beat you until you agreed to whatever you were told. I wonder if that would be acceptable to people like you who think that as long as the police are after someone bad, it's ok?

We the Democratic Party, pushed civil rights so that minorities would not have to endure this kind of excessive police work. We the Democratic Party considered that a point of pride, until recently. Now it interferes with the sainted police who are searching for a child-murdering, cop-killing, bomb-throwing fugitive. What happened to the idea of accused criminal? We fought hard for that too. We the Liberals used to care about that. We used to insist that the accused was just that, until the trial when the facts could come out. Now, any amount of force, any civil rights violations are just fine and dandy if the police are after a child-murdering, cop-killing, bomb throwing fugitive. So when is it not all right to drag an innocent family out of their homes at gun point? What if its just a cop-killing bomb throwing fugitive? Or what if it's just a fugitive? Where do you draw the line at all right.

You have nothing to fear if you aren't hiding something is an asinine argument the right wing used to make. It doesn't even matter if charges were, or were not filed. The Police had no right to pound on the door, and pull people out of their homes at gunpoint. That is a right we fought for back when we thought it was right to be protected by the 4th Amendment. You can't say those people were enjoying their right to be secure in the person, papers, and homes. Fine, no evidence that the police may have found would be admissible. But here is the thing, the police should never have done that. It was absolutely a violation of the 4th Amendment. As we are generally speaking not all that interested in the 4th, perhaps I'm out of line. Let me know where we are going to draw the line though. I'd like to know what crimes the Police can drag people out of their homes at gunpoint without a warrant or probable cause for. Because frankly I'm tired of seeing the bar lowered as each new incident and subsequent excuse comes along.

Next thing you know, we'll be supporting sending anyone the Government doesn't like to Guantanamo Bay Cuba. Rights of the Citizens be damned. When did we start to parrot the talking points of the damned Neo-Con's?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

78. They were looking for someone who killed cops, threw bombs to elude and took hostages

and as soon as the situation passed the searches stopped. The Gestapo tactics you complain about were the norm; Watertown was the exception.

You have nothing to fear if you aren't hiding something is an asinine argument the right wing used to make.

No one said that except in your imagination.

[MineralMan]

124. Oddly enough, we've heard from lots of people

who were nowhere near that house, and not a word from those who were in that house. Don't you find that odd?

[davidn3600]

79. "all available means"

Does that mean we should put the constitution on hold in such circumstances?

The 4th amendment prohibits search of private property without warrant or probable cause. You can't go door to door and chase people out of their homes with assault rifles because you are on a manhunt.

In the end, the lockdown accomplished practically nothing. The guy was spotted by a CIVILIAN after the cops gave up and lifted the "shelter in place" order.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

85. Actually the 4th protects against UNREASONABLE search and seizure

Searching for a suspect known to kill cops and take hostages is not unreasonable. Having people step outside their homes, I imagine, would be effective way of ensuring no one in the family is being held hostage.

And as soon as the suspect was caught the searches ended. It's almost as if the police had no interest in disrupting peoples' lives and wanted to go back to normal protocol.

[thucythucy]

89. The "lockdown" kept the suspect from making his escape

by blending into a crowd, or carjacking another car, or taking hostages out on the street, or setting off a bomb in a subway station, or shooting his way into a day care center.

Instead, he had to spend the day hiding under a tarp, and slowly bleeding into unconsciousness. When the CIVILIAN lifted the tarp he wasn't greeted with a couple of bullets in his face because by that time the suspect had bled out.

If he'd peeked earlier, the property owner might be dead, there might have been another firefight with more dead and wounded cops, and probably a dead suspect to boot.

Not to mention all kinds of whining on DU and elsewhere about "why didn't the police close the area down?"

BTW, I doubt any judge in the land would rule that these cops didn't have "probable cause"--assuming this video isn't bogus on the face of it.

One house, one street, and after all these days not one other video showing another such action. No context, no explanations.

For all I know this was recorded years ago.

My friends in Watertown don't feel violated at all. Imagine that.

[DevonRex]

134. I agree with every word.

Including that the only reason the civilian isn't dead is because of the lockdown. And that for all we know this video is years ago. Could even be a scene from a movie. Or a drug raid.

[DevonRex]

26. We understand when a terrorist must be caught.

We understand when we might be putting ourselves in danger by going out right into the middle of a manhunt.new understand that doing so might even prevent the capture of a terrorist. We understand that if LE comes into our homes they can be sure we aren't being held hostage. We understand they want to do their jobs without hurting us. They don't want accidental shootings. They do want to be thorough.

You can be suspicious and unhelpful if you like. The rest of us will work together to get the job done.

[onenote]

27. Still waiting for answers from you.

Short question: do you have any basis on which this can be verified as having occurred during the Watertown "lockdown" and any information regarding the circumstances of this particular search?

[PatSeg]

29. I find it disturbing as well

We appear to be in the minority however. It is only one video, but it does not appear to be voluntary and the way they are treating citizens is a bit unnerving. Perhaps it is just this one house and maybe they had reason to be suspicious. Trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

As for the TSA, their searches often ARE unconstitutional, though I don't expect it to change much in my lifetime. As such, I just will not fly anymore.

[randome]

34. "...used to cheer the ACLU?" Is the ACLU objecting to this?

Are Bostonians objecting?

[Rex]

99. OP is standing so high up on that soap box

that I think he forgot to look down at all us little liberals that disagree with him over obvious facts he seems to be omitting.

[boston bean]

40. What absolutely won't be accepted as a new normal

is fucking terrorists blowing up innocent women and children, blowing off limbs of women men and children, and executing cops.

If the police have to search every nook and cranny in the hunt for a terrorist they know is in the area, well then, so fucking be it.

They were restoring safety, not taking away anyone's rights.

[freshwest]

130. Well said, also by Will Pitt. This entire article is worth the read:

Random Notes from the Police State by Will Pitt

http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/15895-random-notes-from-the-police-state

Short excerpt posted here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1016&pid=61629

He was there and heard it all, lived through it all, and really says it all.

[Rex]

98. Gestapo? How can you lecture us and use

such terms and expect anyone to care about what you think or say? We got a long way to go before Big Brother turns into Gestapo. What is this nonsense that we will oppose some right winger and abandon Civil Rights? No one has done that here or would do that.

You are mad because the cops asked the citizens of Boston to do them a favor and most of them complied. Get over it.

I don't really care if you have a hangup with cops, most of us do but we don't project our fears onto law enforcement by making stuff up about Boston and what really happened.

[JNelson6563]

106. +1

[NightWatcher]

23. Jesus on a trailer hitch! I thought we solved this already

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. But that would take all the fun out of it, apparently. n/t

[FSogol]

24. Unrec. Get a grip.

[DevonRex]

28. That seems impossible at this time.

Magic 8 ball said so.

[jberryhill]

31. Bring a test case

There are plenty of lawyers who would like to bring a test case out of any of several things that went on.

Have you heard of any resident bringing suit yet?

[Purplehazed]

32. What exactly is in constitutional

The police action is admittedly heavy handed. Unless someone/homeowner was charged with a crime as a result of the search for the suspects I don't see a violation of rights. The police have some type of authority to briefly detain you while conducting an investigation.

[kudzu22]

113. On the street, not in your house.

As far as I know you have an absolute right to refuse a search. It doesn't look like they were given an option, so they must have probable cause or a warrant, or it's an illegal search.

[Purplehazed]

114. You're right....

It would be an illegal search if they were investigating the resident. To my knowledge they were not. That's where I believe the cops get the green light. I sympathize with the residents. I've been on that side of a cop with a gun before. I'ts brutal. But then, what if the suspect was holed up in the house keeping the family hostage? "'sorry officer, nothing to see here".

Apologies for the misspelling in the header of the previous post, typing on my phone.

[SummerSnow]

35. I would be afraid to video tape or stand in the window

[graywarrior]

36. How would you have handled it?

[randome]

37. The question that's been asked more than a dozen times over the past few days.

With nary an answer.

[ProgressiveProfessor]

39. People in multiple threads have answered it

The answers were diverse to say the least

[randome]

45. The only 'suggestions' I've seen are what NOT to do.

DON'T shut the city down. DON'T search people's houses. So the question remains to me: how would the suspect have been apprehended if these things were not done?

[datasuspect]

50. he would have bled out

and the stink of his rotting corpse would have alerted the homeowner that he was in the boat.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. What if he hadn't been mortally wounded? Which would be the prudent assumption at the time.

[datasuspect]

58. if he wasn't mortally wounded

he would have kept doing desperate shit.

the need for money and transport would have eventually got his ass caught.

if they employed those same methods to solve run of the mill shootings that happen in most large cities on a daily basis, most large cities in the US would be pretty safe places.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

61. True, but it's fair to say the authorities wanted to get him

before his desperation led to another shot cop or civilian being taken hostage. I would also imagine that was the motivation for having families exit their homes: ensure he wasn't holed-up with hostages (a SWAG).

[randome]

54. A crazed killer on the run? Not knowing how badly he was wounded?

In hindsight, what you said is true but no one knew this at the time. If the authorities did not act in perfection, I don't see that it's up to non-Bostonians to quibble about it.

[Blue_Tires]

100. I get what you're saying, but it's easy to be a Monday morning quarterback...

And while we're talking hypothetically, as horrible as the bombing was for that city, the political shitstorm would have been a CAT 5 hurricane had they allowed the suspect to slip out of the city and flee the country (which would have been laughably easy if the bombers had any kind of help or support)

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Oven spray has been recommended for other scenarios "in extremis" why not here too?

[randome]

56. Sure. That and duct tape and WD-40 and I'm sure SOMETHING could have been done!

[datasuspect]

101. they could have extracted DNA from little Richie Daley

and made a clone of his old man.

then they should have dispatched a ghost patrol of 1960s chicago police officers to boston.

that shit would have been over in 30 minutes.

[graywarrior]

41. We in Boston sort of kinda figured we were "assisting" in the search

[randome]

47. HEY! No one's interested in your opinion so pipe down!

[graywarrior]

68. Boston fucks don't know SHIT!

[sheshe2]

94. Well said!

[ProgressiveProfessor]

38. The data on what happened is contradictory

There have been posts here that said you could refuse a search and that some did.

There have been posts here that said the the police asserted Exigent Circumstances and you could not refuse search.

We have this video and pictures of a cop delivering milk.

Both sides have posted supporting citations. Supporters of both sides have posted about how theirs is the correct one. It has gotten nasty at times.

Clearly we do not have the straight story...

[Nuclear Unicorn]

59. Yes, but lurid fantasies of boldly flipping-off the hyper-powerful totalitarian regime

makes all those hours wearing a sweaty V for Vendetta mask worthwhile.

[datasuspect]

49. oh FFS

how many times do you think those coppers get to play SWAT dress up with their fancy military toys?

what good is drug war money unless you get to USE the stuff the drug war pays for?

geez.

on another note, the rest of the world is laughing at us for being such wussies. i will give the Brits that much credit: they've faced down WORSE after WW2 (as if the firebombing wasn't bad enough) and STILL maintained a stiff upper lip. and carried on.

now the terrorists know how they can get us to jump even better.

TERRA TERRA TERRA!!!!!111

oooga boooga.

if you support unchecked police paramilitarization, you don't deserve to be free.

[RobinA]

88. Excellent Post

I can't believe what I'm reading in this thread. Kinda like the Patriot Act rah rah after 9/11.

Sadly, I think this is the new normal. This time the argument is that it was extenuating circumstances. Next, tossing the neighbor looking for a regular criminal. And the "Bostonians didn't mind," comeback really isn't convincing. Civil liberties aren't about who "minds."

[whatchamacallit]

52. The idiot authoritarians who think American Citizens being treated like this is peachy

can go to hell. FU.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

55. Let us know when you're suited up and searching for the next mass-killer at large.

We wanna watch

[Arkana]

87. So...you're basically writing off the entire city of Boston

and its surrounding suburbs--one of the most liberal areas of the entire country--as "idiot authoritarians"?

[whatchamacallit]

96. Did the entire city of Boston view that video and approve?

Otherwise, your post is nonsense.

[dballance]

60. As Many Times As I've Seen This Posted I've Never Seen it Positively Sourced

Nor have I seen it on any major network or newspaper site - not even the NY Post. For all we know this could be a drug raid taken at a completely different time from the searched around Watertown.

Also, if this were happening at all the houses searched in Watertown I think there would be more than one video out there.

[reformist2]

63. It is indeed 14 Oak Street in Watertown, Mass - you can find it on Google maps streetview.

[tarheelsunc]

64. How did I end up on Infowars? I could have sworn I was browsing DU. eom

[geckosfeet]

66. Fail.

The police may have been wrong in this case, but that does not justify your conclusions.

[morningfog]

67. I have yet to read of a single person being cited, arrested or charged as a result of the sheltering

order or the searches. Not one person, as far as I know, was arrested due to something in plain view. Not one person was charged for refusing entry or violating the shelter order (and many went out during the shelter time, myself included, nothing happened).

This did feel excessive and maybe it was. But, it wasn't unconstitutional.

[reformist2]

69. The intimidation factor alone makes it out of line, imo.

I can understand how 99% of people there would have been afraid to 'disobey' their orders.

[morningfog]

70. Intimidation does not equal unconstitutional.

[DevonRex]

73. Unsourced video.

Who, what, where, when - verified. Until you've got that for all you know they might be arresting people cooking meth in a residential neighborhood. Or stockpiling weapons and ammunition.

[reformist2]

74. It is indeed 14 Oak Street in Watertown, Mass - you can find it on Google maps streetview.

It's also early springtime in the video - look at the buds on the trees. So unless the SWAT teams were there this time last year, I think it's safe to say that is indeed a scene from last week's manhunt.

[DevonRex]

80. Says you. The SOURCE is not the address. nt

[reformist2]

112. Did you go to Google maps and type in the address I gave you?

[DevonRex]

115. Why would I do that? I want to know the SOURCE not the address.

I want to know who filmed it and what they have to say. I can't even copy the URL for this.

[aquart]

82. Bostonians weren't afraid to cooperate, they were proud to.

[johnwarde]

71. seriously?

I thought all of this "police state" conspiracy theory nonsense was the monopoly of tinfoil hat wearing Tea Party nut jobs. Look, if there's someone the cops are looking for, I help out in whatever way I can. There was no martial law.

[davidn3600]

72. Its clearly not sexy to criticize the government when our side is in power

It's been made pretty clear here.

If the Republicans were in charge, we'd all be screaming about this video.

[whatchamacallit]

75. So true. n/t

[DevonRex]

84. OH, fucking LOL!!!! You mean it's not COOL to assist the police in finding a terrorist.

How sad.

[Apophis]

92. Yep.

[egduj]

76. It was disappointing to see last week.

Bostonians actually cheering about having their rights taken away, all in the name of "for your own safety..."

[brooklynite]

83. So someone was allowed to record police activity and post it for all to see?

Definitely what I remember Martial Law being like...

[Purveyor]

86. No doubt this "Voluntary lock-down and searches" would have been met with a different result

in some of the southern States.

[brooklynite]

90. As a video aficionado, haven't you ever seen a video of a hostage release/escape?

In almost all cases, the hostages are ordered to raise their hands while moving towards the Police. Why? Because in the chaotic seconds before the hostages can reach the safety of the Police, the Police don't know who's who, and don't want have to worry about whether the hostage taker or an accomplice is in the crowd.

[usGovOwesUs3Trillion]

91. Here's another video... "Each time a swat team would RESCUE a family at the point of a gun"

Knock, Knock...

"Who's there?"

"The 4th Reich. Welcome to the New World Order!"

[zeeland]

102. This was an experiment

of sorts. I want to see the video of the person that declined
to "voluntarily" allow the police to enter their home. They have
to be out there because no one in my family would have allowed
this without a warrant and we are average law abiding citizens.

This is one of those defining moments when the country shifted
and we will reflect on it in the future as such.

[Bragi]

119. I totally agree

America crossed a line last week. If there was any doubt that fear trumps rights, there isn't any longer. It is sad, and maybe fitting, that this happened in one of the birthplaces of American liberties.

[treestar]

95. ROFL

I knew exactly which video it was going to be before I clicked on the thread!



No one has any facts about what was happening there.

[Bragi]

104. Yeah right, voluntary

What was sadly voluntary is that most Americans are now quite prepared to wave their civil rights and prostrate themselves whenever asked to do so by heavily-armed police wearing military costumes. The desire for security now totally trumps civil rights. As Ben Franklin said, Americans will eventually end up with neither.

[Savannahmann]

105. Those of us who think so are a rapidly dwindling minority

It's sad to see it.

[Bragi]

123. Quite so

About all we have left is a small modicum of free speech rights. I'm sure this will eventually disappear (especially anonymous free speech) amid cheers from the triumphantly fearful majority.

[GitRDun]

108. Here's a Slate article covering the topic

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_door_search_by_police_for.html

It basically says that in exigent circumstances, hot pursuit, public safety situations they can come in...

[Bragi]

111. Yep, that's what fear hath wrought /nt

[Savannahmann]

116. Those are mighty big holes to have in our civil rights don't you think?

The original exception to Miranda concerned "public safety exception" as the police questioned the suspect on the location of a gun. Now, how long before the public safety exception extends to a door to door search for someone in the neighborhood who might have a gun? That's my issue. We keep finding exceptions to our civil rights, and each one is the foundation of another exception down the road. How long before we have excepted ourselves out of our rights entirely?

Rex Stout wrote a book featuring his fictional detective Nero Wolfe after reading Fred Cook's book "The FBI Nobody Knows." I've read both of those books. The FBI was at the time entering houses illegally, and stealing information that might be damaging to the agency, among other things. If questioned, they would deny knowledge, except to say that any activity was to investigate a normal security check. In time, those Black Bag jobs got changed, to FBI Specials. They have been doing this for decades, and we nod and agree that it's all wonderful because they are working for us. This is the thing that bothers me. We know they are breaking the law, and violating our rights daily. Instead of demanding action, we cheer our representatives who pass a law making the previously illegal actions, legal. Illegal wiretapping? No problem, now it's legal. Illegal search and seizures? No problem here is the authority to use National Security Letters to get around the whole Warrant thing. Because getting a signature from your supervisor is a darned sight easier than getting a signature from one of the Judges who are on call for just that sort of thing. Besides, with the Judge, you'll need some evidence other than a hunch. Every scandal that comes up from learning what violations our Government is doing to us, results in a law authorizing that activity for all time.

When I first heard of the National Security Letters, I laughed. Telling me I can't call my attorney, a Constitutionally guaranteed right? What are you going to do arrest me, and advise me of my right to call an attorney for the crime of calling my attorney? Turns out, they do arrest you, but they don't let you call an attorney then either. But this is fine too, because it's for our protection.

So I am watchful for further erosion of our civil rights. All done under the asinine guise War on Terror. How much more will be taken for our protection, and where does it stop? What is the line they dare not cross, because from the answers to this, and other threads, that line is pretty much non existent.

[Bragi]

120. Good post! Well stated!

I think you are correct: Americans have decided to trade their civil rights for the promise of security.

To paraphrase Ben Franklin, they are likely to end up with neither.

[GitRDun]

125. I am completely with you on

the para-militarization of police and the disintegration of their relationship to the public at large.

The Occupy protests, UC Davis are classic examples of this.

The Boston searches just seem different in that everyone knew the guy was in the area, they were scared, etc. It seemed like everyone was on the same page...idk felt different, just my opinion.

[we can do it]

109. Not this shit again

[Bragi]

122. Yep, more of that "civil rights" shit again

But perk up, you're certainly in the majority if you have decided to trade civil rights for the promise of security.

[Skidmore]

117. I'll wager that if those two had holed up in one of those homes and murdered

an entire family before escaping, you'd be first in line screaming something about why the police didn't get them when they could.

An overview of warrantless search exceptions for your edification:

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp

[Bragi]

121. She already dealt with "warrantless search exceptions"

There are now more exceptions to civil rights than there are rights.

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2747589

[Common Sense Party]

128. Actually, this is in Watertown, not Boston, right?

That's quite a difference--the main difference being that this is the actual neighborhood where a mass-murdering terrorist was hiding.

My big question: How many people live in that little house? It's like a clown car...

[DevonRex]

132. All 20-somethings, too. As far as I've seen there's no source for this video.

Nobody has said I filmed this and this is when and why. maybe it's Watertown, maybe it isn't. Maybe it's one of the specific raids they did as opposed to the house-to-house searches they did. Or maybe it's a completely different thing. I see no prove one way or another. It could be Minnesota in May last year and the cops had a meth cooker on the hook. You can't even copy the URL for the video. So who knows.

I'm just glad somebody else noticed how many people,e came out of that house!

[reformist2]

135. It is Watertown. Anyone can type in 14 Oak Street Watertown MA into Google maps and verify

[DevonRex]

138. And I still want the SOURCE. Although I think i did find the original video

all on my own. It's over 13 minutes long on YouTube and I think the poster's name was Teamster something. Only has 3 or 4 videos uploaded, all from the search. The others are of the search helicopters.

And for your information, the guy who posted THIS version on YouTube is a dumbass Ron Paul supporter. Other people using it are folks like InfoWars. you're in great company.

[Little Star]

129. Fuck that shit! They did a great job under horrible circumstances....

I am sick of people trying to say that some how Boston lost.

We/Boston won in the end and that's what counts.

Fuck the nay sayers, you and the terrorists are the ones who lost.

[sagat]

133. Fuck this Infowars shit.

Check out the person's youtube channel:

http://www.youtube.com/user/rambone5?feature=watch

[ecstatic]

137. So in your humble opinion, what would have been the correct approach

to capturing the Boston bombing suspects?

[DevonRex]

139. Go unarmed into a houseful of 20-somethings when looking for a 19-y/o

suspect and ask politely if a bomber is there amongst them. And risk getting killed and getting all those other 20-somethings killed, too. Or maybe the entire neighborhood blown up if that happened to be the home of accomplices he had managed to get to instead of innocent hostages.

I guess that's the plan of all the people who are pissing and moaning.