I'm not okay with this.

[TalkingDog]

[gcomeau]

1. Then you need to grow up.

They handled that pretty near perfectly.

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. People who see nothing wrong with this whatsoever, frighten me as much as the actual loss

of freedoms and expectations of freedoms beneath the banner of "terrorism". A drone in every sky! 'murika!

[gcomeau]

11. You're clueless.

There is no loss of freedom involved here. The rules governing exigent circumstances and a hot pursuit have been in place a very long time. they didn;t just make this up because a bombing happened.

[zeemike]

21. When did they make this up?

Does anyone even remember or even know?
It sure as hell was not like that when I was borne...

[gcomeau]

37. A very long time ago.

And you should probably consider that yes it was like this when you were born, you just weren't paying attention because:

1: Events like this are extremely rare.
2: People didn't have smart phone video recorders capturing the event and then broadcasting it across the nation on the internet.

There is a very long standing exception to the requirements for a warrant in cases where either there is a clear risk of destruction of evidence or a clear and present THREAT TO PUBLIC SAFETY if a delay to acquire warrants before conducting the search is imposed.

Would you care even attempting to argue that there was not a clear threat to public safety involved here every additional minute this guy was on the loose?

[zeemike]

51. Well I was born in 43 and grew up in the 50s

And I can tell you that this would have never happened then...never.
And if it was to happen there would be no one in our legal system that would make excuses for it.

The genesis for this started with the war on drugs...just for the reason you said....they were concerned about the destruction of drugs because when the cops knocked on the door they would flush it down the toilet...and right there was the reason they needed to gut the protections of the law and the constitution....cause it is far worse to lose the evidence of drug use than the loss of our constitutional rights.

And now it is "terrorism"...must get the Terrorist at all costs...even if we have to create a police state...and now this is the new normal.

And this is not new...there have been bombing and mass shootings as far back as I can remember...but no one back then thought the remedy was a police state....now many have been convinced through fear and a constant 24 hour news cycle that it is essential to "keep us safe"

[blackspade]

66. Exactly.

[Mr.Bill]

71. You might want to ask some Japanese people on the west coast

what happened to them in the 1940s.

[zeemike]

72. Or back to Lincoln suspending habeas corpus.

That is the point...all they need is a reason.
But lately the reasons have been getting weaker and weaker...soon the only reason necessary is that they want to.

[IrishAyes]

81. Never would've happened in your youth?

Did you grow up in a bubble? Just because you're unaware of something doesn't mean it never existed.

[zeemike]

84. Suppose you give us an example of it then.

I lived then and I don't remember it happened...and I read the papers all the time.
Now to be fair I did not grow up down south in the Jim Crow land...I am sure all sorts of illegal and unconstitutional things went on down there then...but I never heard of anyone trying to justify it as OK under the law...like some do today.

[IrishAyes]

86. Since you don't want to listen to reason

Let me suggest that next time there's a major emergency with bloodthirsty felons on the loose, you could put a big sign in your yard inviting them to come hide out with you so the big bad cops would know where to look and not harrass everyone else.

But then of course you'd get what you deserved.

[zeemike]

87. Bloodthirsty felons....now I am really scared.

And I know I deserve to be punished for thinking like that...perhaps you can recommend a nice re education camp?

[IrishAyes]

88. You're only interested in stirring the pot, so you're wasting everybody's time. Thru w/u

[limpyhobbler]

25. Don't you see those people are being pulled out of their house to protect them from themselves.

They could be a terrorist sleeper cell and not even know it.

[itsrobert]

69. Or they could be held against their will

with terrorist hiding in a closet that will blow them up if they sequel to the police.

[Mojorabbit]

57. I feel the same way. nt

[1monster]

45. Sure doesn't look like the police asked nicely for cooperation in finding a terrorist.

Looks like the inhabitents were invaded at gun point, frisked, and detained while their property was searched.

Were the occupants of the house willing to cooperate? Possibly, maybe even probably. But they were not given that opportunity. They were forced from their homes at gun point with hands in the air.

[gcomeau]

50. I refer you...

...to all those exact same people CHEERING THOSE SAME LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL IN THE STREETS THAT NIGHT.


But yeah, you go ahead and decide you know how terribly they were being treated based on your amazing direct first hand experience of it through a smartphone video shot through a window from 100 feet away.

[1monster]

52. And YOUR first-hand experience? Please, do tell us.

[gcomeau]

53. I'm not referring to my reaction am I?

I'm referring to the reaction of THOSE PEOPLE WHO HAD THEIR HOMES SEARCHED.

Pay attention.

[1monster]

55. Evasion. As expected.

[IrishAyes]

83. Oh, now I get it, MONSTER

If you wobble around and someone calls you to attention, they're guilty of evasion for not agreeing with you. Thanks dear for explaining it to me. I was sooo confused.

[avebury]

68. On one of my trips to London several years ago,

six bombs were detonated in London on a Friday night. London did not shut down, people did not stay home. Life continued. My friend and I had gone to the theater that night and had no clue about what happened until someone mentioned it the next morning at St. Paul's Cathedral. I picked up a paper Sunday morning saw that one of the bomb sites was located near Mable Arch and dragged my friend over there to take some pictures. Stuff like that doesn't happen in Maine.

I went to London again after the London bus/subway bombings. I did observe that the Underground was not as packed as normal but people were out and about and life continued.

I refuse to live my life based upon what may or may not happen. Once you allow fear to take over you and change how you live, the terrorists have already won. If I were living in the targeted house-to-house area the only reason I would have stayed home would have been to make sure that nothing happened to my home.

I hope that state workers who were not able to go to work get paid administrative leave and not have to give up annual leave.

[IrishAyes]

82. And exactly how do you know

If it wouldn't be safer for someone perhaps being held hostage in the basement or attic if it looked like the homeowners were forced out? Whether they were or not. If they appeared to be cooperating, any potential hostage(s) could be shot in a fit of rage.

[CountAllVotes]

2. If that guy was in YOUR house

You'd be damn glad to see the authorities show up and demand to search the premises, believe me on that one.

[TalkingDog]

3. Yep, you are right. But he couldn't be in every premises. They performed a lot of illegal searches.

That's the part I'm not okay with.

[gcomeau]

8. They performed exactly ZERO illegal searches.

This video and every other search conducted was 100% legal.

[blackspade]

67. citation please?

[zeemike]

13. Well you better get OK with it.

Cause that is the new normal...we have to give up our freedom to save it.

[Kablooie]

54. When you don't know which house he's in you have to search all of them.

You seem to assume they knew where he was so did unnecessary searches.

I guarantee that these guys didn't do this for fun or to intimidate citizens.
Apparently there was enough uncertainty in this particular case that they had to assume the worst and act accordingly but they quickly realized the truth and the intimidation stopped.

Scary, yes, but necessary if people as ruthless as these bombers are to be apprehended.
The alternative is to be polite and nice but allow the bombers to remain at large and continue to kill innocent people.

[TheCowsCameHome]

4. What are you hiding?

Those cops did their job very well, most would agree.

[TalkingDog]

5. Evidently everybody is harboring a criminal or is a criminal. Just going with the crowd.

n/t

[TheCowsCameHome]

7. Until they found him, he could have been anywhere in that area.

Thank goodness for what they did - no further harm or loss of life.

[ret5hd]

23. What did they do at houses with no answer?

[gcomeau]

39. Went in of course.

Which was, again, the *exact correct thing to do*.

[ret5hd]

46. So they kicked the door in, etc, to get inside?

[gcomeau]

49. If they had to I assume so.

And...?

I assume you think this is leading somewhere? How about we just leap ahead to whatever point it is you think you're trying to make?

[ret5hd]

56. I heard differently. Are you sure?

[James48]

6. Welcome to the police state of America.

"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."-


Where are the "Patriots" now?

[gcomeau]

10. Exigent circumstances/hot pursuit.

You would prefer that KNOWING that a terrorist bomber was hiding in that specific neighborhood they go door to door just asking politely if they could come in then turning away if someone said no? So all the guy has to do is hold a gun to someone's head and tell them to say no if the cops come to the door asking to search and he's home free?

This was not a 4th violation. That is a protection against UNREASONABLE search. this was the definition of freaking reasonable and the law is clear on that point.

[Still Sensible]

14. Bingo! n/t

[Triana]

73. I'd say that with someone as dangerous as the bomber on the loose in the hood...

....the searches were reasonable. If it was my house in this same situation I'd not have an issue with it. If they came in there for little/no reason, that would be different. But they had a reason and a damn good one.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

15. This incident is providing lots of video for the paranoid "New World Order" gun nuts.

[FailureToCommunicate]

22. Ah, but we knew damn well it was NOT "unreasonable" search. It was reasonable and

warranted if ever there was. For all any of us knew, the suspect could have hidden under our porch...or in our boat in the back yard. Nah, that would just be a crazy place to hide.

[El Fuego]

90. The reality is that the cops are well-intentioned individuals trying to protect their community

The situation was unprecedented, decisions were being made for the greater good. There's no organized malevolent police state.

[limpyhobbler]

12. It's only going to get worse.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

17. This is a "house to house search"....

They had bullhorns. People had ample warning to get dressed.

[limpyhobbler]

18. Why did they have to leave their house?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

24. For their own safety if there's a firefight.

[limpyhobbler]

26. Then why do they have to put their hands over their heads?

[thucythucy]

30. So the police could be certain no one was about to take a shot at them?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

32. The guy must have had an attitude.

[limpyhobbler]

33. I wonder why?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

35. Watch it again and count the number of people that come out.

[limpyhobbler]

40. Why ?

I think 11 people 1 dog. So?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

43. It may be a college flop house.

One of the perps was a student.

[limpyhobbler]

48. Maybe it was a baby shower.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

59. Hey! Just because the one guy had a pot belly is no reason to get nasty!

[TalkingDog]

16. Mea Culpa. Evidently this is legal. But I still find the process objectionable.

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

[FailureToCommunicate]

34. Glad you are open to rethinking this. Of course it was objectionable. None of us wanted lots of

things that happened here in Boston this week. Nobody wants shootouts in front of their house, or bombs being tossed in their street, or an armed and obviously dangerous suspect creeping around their property! But, good grief EVERYONE in Watertown knew this search was necessary, like it or not. My brother was concerned before they got to his house that police would see his, eh, 'relaxed style' of housekeeping. I told him to stay positive, maybe, I said, they'll admire your ability to create barricades out of common household stuff so quickly...

And...with expanded and more searching that next night or next day they might have found who they sought in Henneberry's back yard...

[ret5hd]

19. Neither am I.

[dixiegrrrrl]

20. Sadly, more people seem to be ok with that.

I supect they have not studied much history.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

29. These days Anne Frank would be Tweeting.

[thucythucy]

27. A little context would help.

Was every single house in Watertown searched this way? Was yours?

Or did the police have a reason to suspect that this particular house might have been harboring someone or something nefarious?

Do you know either way? Because the answer makes a great deal of difference, given the events of the past week, in whether or not being "okay" with this particular search makes sense.

Presumably you're also not okay with people setting off explosions at public events, engaging in shootouts with the police, and then trying to disappear into a residential neighborhood. So just out of curiosity, how would YOU have handled this differently, had you been suddenly responsible for ensuring public safety, not to mention safeguarding your own life as a police officer?

How would YOU have insured that an armed fugitive who had already allegedly helped murder four people and maimed close to two hundred others was not in that particular house?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

31. "A little context would help."

Like maybe this guy told the cops to get lost?

[thucythucy]

38. Hard to know, since I wasn't there.

If indeed this guy told the cops to get lost it would be one of the stupidest things to do, given the context.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

42. They didn't come to the door right away and the place was packed with people....

For all we know there were people hiding out of paranoia for overdue library books.

[thucythucy]

44. Yeah, I'm sure after three civilians dead

in two road side bombings, with 170 injured, some maimed for life, and a police officer shot to death and another one in critical condition, after an exchange during which grenades and another IED were used, all these cops had just one thought in mind: "How can we fuck with these innocent people's civil liberties?"

Had to be. There's just no other humanly possible explanation.

[Spitfire of ATJ]

47. Okay,...THAT was funny.

[agracie]

74. Indeed.

[thesquanderer]

70. or flushing their drugs down the toilet.

I wonder what the legal ramifications would be if the police inadvertently came upon such illegal activity in a circumstance like this?

[Spitfire of ATJ]

75. I guess it depends on the nature of the illegal activity....

Ya never know what you'll find in a basement.

Or a window box....

[FailureToCommunicate]

36. +1

[Xithras]

28. Neither am I

The people in that video need to get a good lawyer. While exigent circumstances permitted the police to perform the search, their treatment of the residents...who were CLEARLY not the terrorist they were looking for...was illegal. If you watch toward the end, you can see them doing patdowns of the family members without warrants and without probable cause. The police can legally enter THE HOME to search for a criminal during a manhunt, but their powers end there.

The police have the legal right to search private property without a warrant during an active manhunt. They do NOT have the legal right to force families out of their homes at gunpoint and search the individuals without evidence of them being involved in a crime. The lawyers are going to have a field day with this.

[Kablooie]

41. Unpleasant, yes. Scary, yes. Is the town safe now, YES!

It's unpleasant, like getting a root canal, but a little pain is sometimes necessary to fix a problem.

No innocent people were harmed and the danger was alleviated.

Unfortunately it's something we must accept if we wish to be protected from the insane people of this world today.

[southernyankeebelle]

58. They act like the people in that house are all guilty of something. I dunno I am

not happy the way people are being treated. This isn't the america I grew up in. Tell us to grow up is very silly. We do have a constitution that we must go by. I see to many americans willing to give up their freedoms so easily. I dunno really if this is right or wrong. I just know it doesn't seem right. Today is the terrorists who will it be tommorrow? We need to be careful. That is all am saying.

[rocktivity]

60. Legal or not, this house was raided, not searched.

Unless the cops had a particular reason to treat the occupants of that particular house like suspects.

More on this video: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022729518


rocktivity

[Buzz Clik]

61. I guess we've identified the new DU obsession.

My next challenge is to figure out how to string together some identifiers to trash these threads.

[heaven05]

62. this week

has been a definite eye opener and wake up call about our 'brave new world' here in the 21st century A.D. Yeah, yeah I'm going to get used to it, got to but it still is a sad testament on human existence. It REALLY sucks

[blackspade]

65. Me neither

[VPStoltz]

76. Do you remember a little somthing called the "Patriot Act?"

The Repugnant Right didn't flinch when War Criminal "W" thought it o.k. to infringe on Americans' "rights."
We are seeing it in action here.

[darkangel218]

80. BS.

And you know it.

[treestar]

77. Should hear all sides first

I'm beginning to think it is this video that is the false flag. It's been flogged here enough that it's suspicious. Did it really happen? Why should not the police get to explain their side first.

[iamthebandfanman]

78. but didnt you hear..

it was voluntary ..

I mean, mind you id imagine there were a lot of frightened people who were making decisions under extreme pressure and fear for their lives (not necessarily the police, but the situation in general)...
but I guess that irrelevant to most people.

[darkangel218]

79. So you would rather risk being blown up by terrorists

Rather than have police search your house?

[IrishAyes]

85. And God forbid if the police

were not laid back and casual enough to suit someone else that they were being polite enough. If you've had any experience with emergencies and crowd control, you know command pitch is called for.

Working in healthcare for quite a few years, I saw some emergencies myself, and people usually told me later that they had no idea I could bark orders like a drill sergeant, because I'm a tiny little woman and usually so soft spoken. But honey doesn't work in those situations. You have to command and mean it, not give contrarians time to stand around and quibble until all is lost.

[Trillo]

89. Thank you for posting that, I was going to, but wanted to check to see if others had.

It's extremely disturbing. I'm not sure of the details of that particular video pictured, but if those people in that green house were not charged with a crime, then it certainly looks like they were mistreated and abused by the police.

We can see the founders intent for the sanctity of people's homes in the 3rd and 4th Amendments.

Was everyone in Boston treated this way, as just a common thief?