Enforcement Actions in Boston

[Helm]

I assumed people were already aware that was the case instead of thinking it was some sort of infallible, pinnacle of human achievement.

[Ksandra]

would you say the bill of the rights is more a bill of "good ideas sometime" then?

I'd say, a good idea outside of extenuating situations.

I'd be upset if they did the kind of search they did over someone stealing $5 at a 711. But when someone blows up 200 people, I'm all for the cops doing w/e they can to prevent more lives from being lost.


There is also the flip side of being a good samaritan. I am somewhat disgusted that there are people that care so much about the concept that "omg cop in my house!" than they are to help in any way to take down a bomber. And yes, even if you are 100% certain that the guy isn't in your house, you are still going to put that seed of doubt in the cops mind when you say, "No." How many are going to get distracted wondering if your house was the one? How many are going to back track when they should be pushing forward? And unless you have something illegal in the home that actually warranted attention (ie. hard drugs or piles of child porn vs. marijuana), and I have no pity for you, then there is no fucking reason to not let them in, and every reason to actually be a good person and do it.

[hey]

there is no fucking reason to not let them in,

You don't seriously think that, do you?

[Jeryhn]

would you say the bill of the rights is more a bill of "good ideas sometime" then?

The way I look at it, there are just as many citizens who put too much emphasis on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, much the same way a lot of annoying cops do.

I'm pretty sure most of you have rolled through a stop sign California-stop style more than once in your life. Out here the fine for doing that is in the $500 range. Bet you'd be pissed as shit if a cop pulled you over for doing it on an empty road in the middle of the night. The letter of the law says its the cop's job to write you that citation though. Would you rather have a cop out to write you tickets, or out to protect and serve the public?

This line of thinking applies especially to this situation. A reasonable person should conclude that when a manhunt for a person in your area is underway and the cops are going door to door to search for this person, that they should cooperate with police instructions as best they can. The letter of the law protects you from having your property unreasonably seized and searched, and the spirit of that law is that so you don't incriminate yourself in wrongdoing. However, the cops aren't here for you. It is not unreasonable to allow a search to be made of your house to catch a dangerous killer that is someone other than yourself or your own. They have better things to do than go through your sock drawers when SWAT teams are locked and loaded, and a reasonable person would recognize this.

[hey]

The way I look at it, there are just as many citizens who put too much emphasis on the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, much the same way a lot of annoying cops do.

I'm pretty sure most of you have rolled through a stop sign California-stop style more than once in your life. Out here the fine for doing that is in the $500 range. Bet you'd be pissed as shit if a cop pulled you over for doing it on an empty road in the middle of the night. The letter of the law says its the cop's job to write you that citation though. Would you rather have a cop out to write you tickets, or out to protect and serve the public?

This line of thinking applies especially to this situation. A reasonable person should conclude that when a manhunt for a person in your area is underway and the cops are going door to door to search for this person, that they should cooperate with police instructions as best they can. The letter of the law protects you from having your property unreasonably seized and searched, and the spirit of that law is that so you don't incriminate yourself in wrongdoing. However, the cops aren't here for you. It is not unreasonable to allow a search to be made of your house to catch a dangerous killer that is someone other than yourself or your own. They have better things to do than go through your sock drawers when SWAT teams are locked and loaded, and a reasonable person would recognize this.

If your rights can be ignored because someone thinks they have a good reason to ignore them, then you don't really have any rights at all. To compare this to driving through a stop sign in the middle of the night when no one is around is just absurd.

[Jeryhn]

You have a god-given right to life. Some guy, cop or not, has a gun in your face. Do you think he cares?

[hey]

You have a god-given right to life. Some guy, cop or not, has a gun in your face. Do you think he cares?

Well, based on the responses from the cops here, it seems not. And that's a pretty serious problem, if you ask me.

[Jeryhn]

To compare this to driving through a stop sign in the middle of the night when no one is around is just absurd.

Nice ninja-edit by the way. Also, how do you figure? An unreasonable search of your house and an unreasonable search of your car are both based upon the 4th Amendment. Being compelled to testify against yourself for wrongdoing in either case is based upon the 5th. Considering the same rights you're concerned about having violated can be violated in different situations, how are they not comparable?

Do you even know what your rights were designed for?

[Helm]

Rights are entirely arbitrary, but I think here in the America we tend to get a fairly good shake all things considered. I'm sure people in other countries wish they could whine about police searching their house to protect everyone in the area from a killer.

[Ksandra]

You don't seriously think that, do you?

You're right. What will I do if they drop the dish towel on the floor? That means I'll have to clean it before its time! The horror!

[hey]

Nice ninja-edit by the way. Also, how do you figure? An unreasonable search of your house and an unreasonable search of your car are both based upon the 4th Amendment. Being compelled to testify against yourself for wrongdoing in either case is based upon the 5th. Considering the same rights you're concerned about having violated can be violated in different situations, how are they not comparable?

Do you even know what your rights were designed for?

Because in that case you are the one breaking the law. Driving isn't a right, nor is not getting a ticket for breaking the law.

[hey]

You're right. What will I do if they drop the dish towel on the floor? That means I'll have to clean it before its time! The horror!

Until they drop something else, and instead of needing to be picked up and cleaned, shatters and is destroyed.

[Ksandra]

Until they drop something else, and instead of needing to be picked up and cleaned, shatters and is destroyed.

OMG MY TV, oh wait...

Or the state will pay you. Most agencies have insurance bonds for their police officers for these types of instances. I heard (can't verify) all our officers have $1,000,000 bonds on them for breaking stuff during duty. Once you exceed the limit though i'm sure it'll get revoked so don't blow up anything or drive cars in to buildings (or get sued).

[Niiro]

If your rights can be ignored because someone thinks they have a good reason to ignore them, then you don't really have any rights at all.

By that logic warrants are never valid. It's a very naive concept that's neither realistic or practical.

Rights are entirely arbitrary

^
Your rights to life, liberty, and keeping your transgender blowup sex dolls a secret extends only until the law considers them a liability. That line isn't always clear and can be crossed at any time if law enforcement feels that it is necessary. Whether or not their actions were justified is subject to scrutiny after the fact by anyone willing to make the case in court.

Rights and laws are only as infallible as the people that create and uphold them.

[hey]

OMG MY TV, oh wait...

Which works great if they break a TV (not really, since then you still don't have a tv for the 3 months it'll take them to write you a check). Not so much if they break something that cannot be replaced, or something cheaper that isn't worth the hassle to get them to pay for.

By that logic warrants are never valid. It's a very naive concept that's neither realistic or practical.

Nah. If they have a real reason to search the specific house, and can convince a judge of that, then there's no issue.

[Niiro]

If your rights can be ignored because someone thinks they have a good reason to ignore them, then you don't really have any rights at all.

If they have a real reason to search the specific house, and can convince a judge of that, then there's no issue.

[Helm]

Many lulz.

[Day]

This is what happens when you let a hermaphrodite try too hard for too long.

[Kyreth]

In D.C. a judge or magistrate isn't going to be available 24/7 so unless it's a case like this, you'll have to wait for business hours and even then it's rare. Hell even the process of releasing prisoners on citations is automated now. No more booking magistrate at central anymore.

Magistrates in DC actually do provide 24/7 service, up to and including waking one up at stupid-o-clock to get a warrant vetted. It's expected. Virginia does so as well.

[hey]

Someone, as in one person. If i meant multiple people, i would have said "some people".