Explosion during Boston Marathon (political discussion)

• Dr Winston O'Boogie

  

  Anyone catch Chris Matthews equating the bombing to an attack on the Democratic Party being carried out by right wing extremists?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Dr Winston O'Boogie;1430947 wrote:Anyone catch Chris Matthews equating the bombing to an attack on the Democratic Party being carried out by right wing extremists?

  Does anyone care what Chris Matthews says anymore? The guy is just a hack, just like David Sirota at Salon/MSNBC who apparently is on suicide watch when he found out these guys weren't militant right-wing rednecks.
• tk421

  

  I know exigent circumstances exist, but this is crazy. Getting pulled out of your house at gunpoint, hands on head, and frisked in your front yard has to be a violation of your rights. I don't care how many terrorists they were searching for, if the police knock on your door you should be able to tell them that all is well and they should leave unless they actually saw that guy run inside your house. Bullshit.
  
  [video=youtube;2LrbsUVSVl8][/video]
• WebFire

  tk421;1431175 wrote:I know exigent circumstances exist, but this is crazy. Getting pulled out of your house at gunpoint, hands on head, and frisked in your front yard has to be a violation of your rights. I don't care how many terrorists they were searching for, if the police knock on your door you should be able to tell them that all is well and they should leave unless they actually saw that guy run inside your house. Bullshit.
  
  [video=youtube;2LrbsUVSVl8][/video]

  The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. So the question is, what is unreasonable? Is a terrorist on the loose a reasonable reason to search?
• tk421

  

  Yes, unless someone saw him run into my house. If I answer the door, tell the police everthing is fine and they don't leave, it IS an unreasonable search. You are telling me that it would be reasonable to search however many houses in a 20 block radius?
• Ghmothwdwhso

  tk421;1431195 wrote:Yes, unless someone saw him run into my house. If I answer the door, tell the police everthing is fine and they don't leave, it IS an unreasonable search. You are telling me that it would be reasonable to search however many houses in a 20 block radius?

  This guy's got it right. ^^^^
  
  What's next, "a local drug dealer is in the neighborhood, and we really need to find him, he might be dangerous!" Let us search your house or else.
  
  Or,
  
  "We know that you bought five dozen doughnuts at the local bakery and you only have 3 people living in this house, that doesn't add up", Let us search your house or else.
  
  I know some Jac#kazz will say that I am equating Doughnuts with Bombers and I will ignore that, the principle remains the same.
  
  Trust what you know is right.
• gut

  WebFire;1431184 wrote:The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. So the question is, what is unreasonable? Is a terrorist on the loose a reasonable reason to search?

  Go a step a further. Right or wrong, if they detect duress in your statements is the search unreasonable?
  
  More poignantly...do you want them to determine if you are under duress? The libertarian says "he!! no"...the hostage held at gunpoint says "good lord YES"
• Cleveland Buck

  

  WebFire;1431184 wrote:The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. So the question is, what is unreasonable? Is a terrorist on the loose a reasonable reason to search?

  Unreasonable means what it says. If there is no reason to search (evidence the suspect is inside, enough evidence to get a warrant), then entering is unreasonable. No one cares though. The whole display was despicable, and the sheep ate it up while they were imprisoned and violated by the standing army.
• WebFire

  tk421;1431195 wrote:Yes, unless someone saw him run into my house. If I answer the door, tell the police everthing is fine and they don't leave, it IS an unreasonable search. You are telling me that it would be reasonable to search however many houses in a 20 block radius?

  I'm not telling you anything. That's whey there is a ? after my sentence.
• WebFire

  Cleveland Buck;1431219 wrote:Unreasonable means what it says. If there is no reason to search (evidence the suspect is inside, enough evidence to get a warrant), then entering is unreasonable. No one cares though. The whole display was despicable, and the sheep ate it up while they were imprisoned and violated by the standing army.

  IMO, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't for them. Hell, we already have people bitching because they didn't search enough. Imagine the outcry if they only searched where they had explicit permission, and then found slain civilians in houses where they didn't search.
  
  Does the 4th amendment trump national security? What this a national security risk? IDK, just asking questions.
• WebFire

  Is refusal to search enough of a reason to be suspicious, making it then reasonable? IDK, just asking more questions.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  If they refuse then the cops should get a warrant.
  
  Without knowing more about these people it seems like a big cluster$^% by the cops. This wasn't a public area, it was a private home. National security wasn't a threat in that house.
• WebFire

  Manhattan Buckeye;1431237 wrote:If they refuse then the cops should get a warrant.
  
  Without knowing more about these people it seems like a big cluster$^% by the cops. This wasn't a public area, it was a private home. National security wasn't a threat in that house.

  Your last sentence doesn't even make sense.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  What didn't make sense?
  
  The guy wasn't there and people were led out under gunpoint and forced away from the home. Unless the cops had a damn good reason to think the bomber was there, without a warrant it is likely a 4th amendment violation.
• gut

  WebFire;1431235 wrote:Is refusal to search enough of a reason to be suspicious, making it then reasonable?

  I wonder how the Hollywood version flies - "I thought I heard a scream - did you hear a scream? Probable cause"
  
  I think what it comes down to if the cops claim they heard something or had reason to be suspicious and the suspect is there, then it will be ruled a legal search. Knowing or having reason to believe the suspect is in the area is not irrelevant - fugitive in the area + obvious duress = probable cause. Of course, if the suspect isn't there then it's a lot harder to justify it as a legal search.
  
  In either case, they can't go in on suspicion of a fugitive being there and then pop the owner for an illegal gun. The gun would be obtained in an illegal search (unless the homeowner willingly consents to his house being searched).
• WebFire

  Manhattan Buckeye;1431251 wrote:What didn't make sense?
  
  The guy wasn't there and people were led out under gunpoint and forced away from the home. Unless the cops had a damn good reason to think the bomber was there, without a warrant it is likely a 4th amendment violation.

  "National security wasn't a threat in that house." That makes no sense. Are you saying national security can't be threatened because they are on private property?
• Manhattan Buckeye

  What is your definition of national security?
  
  I don't know how anyone can watch that video and not be disturbed.
• WebFire

  Manhattan Buckeye;1431275 wrote:What is your definition of national security?
  
  I don't know how anyone can watch that video and not be disturbed.

  So 9/11 did not affect national security?
  
  Honestly, I have mixed emotions. I understand the 4th amendment and the importance to protect it. On the other hand, what would I want them to do if I lived in this neighborhood? Just quit and go home because they aren't able to search for the guy?
  
  Damned if they do, damned if they don't.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  I don't recall my apartment being searched by armed guards after 9/11.
  
  If there was a reason why this particular house was searched in that manner, Boston/Watertown/Feds should explain. The second bomber guy obviously wasn't there. In fact, didn't he get caught AFTER the lock-down was released?
  
  IMO there needs to be a very good reason why any American citizen is forced out of a residence at gunpoint. Perhaps in this case there was a good reason.
• WebFire

  Manhattan Buckeye;1431296 wrote:I don't recall my apartment being searched by armed guards after 9/11.
  
  If there was a reason why this particular house was searched in that manner, Boston/Watertown/Feds should explain. The second bomber guy obviously wasn't there. In fact, didn't he get caught AFTER the lock-down was released?
  
  IMO there needs to be a very good reason why any American citizen is forced out of a residence at gunpoint. Perhaps in this case there was a good reason.

  I didn't ask if your home was searched. I asked if national security was considered at risk.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  Apparently not enough to be on lockdown. But maybe that is a Boston thing. Two days after 9/11 I was back in my office.
• gut

  Manhattan Buckeye;1431309 wrote:Apparently not enough to be on lockdown.

  Legally I don't think they can do that. And technically I think Boston was more of a request than an order.
  
  I haven't heard of anyone testing it, but you have to assume any car leaving Watertown would have been stopped, which I'm pretty sure would have been illegal. I don't know the legality or the powers vested by declaring martial law, but they never declared martial law in Boston.
• Gblock

  I have to side with the cops here. my thinking was that this guy most likely busted into someones house and had them hostage in the basement. he had nowhere to go, no access to food or water. if he has your family in the basement even if you answer the door, you may not be able to say anything so their only choice is to search each house
• Manhattan Buckeye

  gut;1431334 wrote:Legally I don't think they can do that. And technically I think Boston was more of a request than an order.
  
  I haven't heard of anyone testing it, but you have to assume any car leaving Watertown would have been stopped, which I'm pretty sure would have been illegal. I don't know the legality or the powers vested by declaring martial law, but they never declared martial law in Boston.

  Legally you are likely correct. But if failing to abide by a request results in a gun in one's face, I'm not sure there is much of a difference.
• Belly35

  

  tk421;1431175 wrote:I know exigent circumstances exist, but this is crazy. Getting pulled out of your house at gunpoint, hands on head, and frisked in your front yard has to be a violation of your rights. I don't care how many terrorists they were searching for, if the police knock on your door you should be able to tell them that all is well and they should leave unless they actually saw that guy run inside your house. Bullshit.
  
  [video=youtube;2LrbsUVSVl8][/video]

  I support the house to house search, the efforts of police, fbi, swat, special units and the military
  but think about this type of force used against a population un-armed. The amassing of armed units, mobilized so quickly in a confined area. It made me proud to think that this is why America is strong and prepared but then again there is the flip side
  This is what our 2nd Amendment is all about, the citizen right to protection themselves against their own government.
  Many Boston citizens understood the important of this and the potential inconvenience of house to house search, extreme maybe so but needed. But what if this was not the Boston bomber search but a government lock down for no justified reason… ????? What would be the recourse of America Citizens? As long as citizens have the ability to defend themselves Political Factions, Politicians and Government is in fear.
  
  I was thinking how many of those Boston citizen forced out of their homes or where frighten that the bomber was going to show up at their house and they were unarmed .. how many Boston citizen where prepared to defend themselves with a gun if the bomber was a intruder?