Enforcement Actions in Boston

[archibaldcrane]

It's quite frankly not "common sense" that the police should be able to search wherever they want if they think a dangerous person is in a general area. Usually that isn't the case.

[archibaldcrane]

Also, how the fuck did they lose this guy in the first place? Do they not have helicopters in the northeast? I've never seen a chase suspect evade a police helicopter here in California.

[Byrthnoth]

Well, lets test the reasonableness of society and the need for a rigorous definition of when something is acceptable or not. Has anyone sued the police for unreasonable search during the recent Boston events?

I've seen a lot of guffawing about whether or not their actions were legally justified, but I haven't seen a single legal case brought against the police department for violating the fourth amendment. Looks like there's a city full of people that's okay with trading their fourth amendment rights for safety once in a blue moon.

[jmc]

Also, how the fuck did they lose this guy in the first place? Do they not have helicopters in the northeast? I've never seen a chase suspect evade a police helicopter here in California.

Only helicopters are run by the state police, and they are not up and running 24/7.

Incident happened so quickly, there was no way the helicopter would've gotten ready to take off and in Cambridge or Watertown before the suspect disappeared.

Also nice update of the day. The perimeter was broken down into sectors, the boat suspect #2 was hiding in was included in a sector that was "deemed clear" by a group of officers.

[Ksandra]

It's quite frankly not "common sense" that the police should be able to search wherever they want if they think a dangerous person is in a general area.

uh..how is that NOT common sense?

Also, how the fuck did they lose this guy in the first place? Do they not have helicopters in the northeast? I've never seen a chase suspect evade a police helicopter here in California.

Archi....unlike Cali, the NE has trees. If I google earth my house back home (which I've done in the past) I can't even see it because of how many trees there are.

[hey]

Well, lets test the reasonableness of society and the need for a rigorous definition of when something is acceptable or not. Has anyone sued the police for unreasonable search during the recent Boston events?

I've seen a lot of guffawing about whether or not their actions were legally justified, but I haven't seen a single legal case brought against the police department for violating the fourth amendment. Looks like there's a city full of people that's okay with trading their fourth amendment rights for safety once in a blue moon.

Uh, it's only been a week.

[Xajii]

uh..how is that NOT common sense?

Dangerous people are on the loose all the fucking time. It's a thin, thin line. Hell, plenty of people who have killed as many as those guys did - and plenty who've killed many more - are loose, but cops aren't busting down doors. Just because it was a high profile "act of terror", all of a sudden it's okay to do that?

Day thought this line of argument was being purposefully obtuse, but I don't agree. What is the discriminator? How dangerous does someone have to be before it's okay to break amendments?

[Day]

I think a lot of it has to do with "Fresh Pursuit" and I also think that's a fairly obvious difference that some of you are ignoring for the sake of your argument.

[Xajii]

I am not familiar with any incident of fresh pursuit that led to door-to-door home searches

[Day]

irrelevant.

what you are and aren't familiar with that is.

[archibaldcrane]

uh..how is that NOT common sense?

Because cops make mistakes, like they did in this case, and you end up with a ton of searches that result in nothing but violations of privacy in regards to protecting the public.

[Day]

Because cops make mistakes, like they did in this case, and you end up with a ton of searches that result in nothing but violations of privacy in regards to protecting the public.

I don't see how it was a mistake. Sure they didn't find him, doesn't mean they shouldn't have looked. Gotta play to win.

[Xajii]

irrelevant.

what you are and aren't familiar with that is.

Are you familiar with any? Is anyone here? If evidence is present, then great - otherwise, my point stands.

[Day]

Didn't' they go door to door looking for Dorner?

[hey]

Gotta play to win.

Or to lose.

[Xajii]

http://gma.yahoo.com/christopher-dor...opstories.html

You are correct. Then I was mistaken; though I don't agree with its use here, either. Also, they shot multiple civilians and set a fucking home on fire, so I'm not sure we can use LAPD as a great precedent for proper police activity

[archibaldcrane]

I believe they were forcing entry into empty random cabins in Big Bear for Dorner, but I'm not positive.

[archibaldcrane]

And there's nothing wrong with "going door-to-door", that is entirely warranted and legal in either situation (Dorner or marathon) - the key factor here is whether you can refuse a search and/or whether they will search if noone answers to give permission.

[archibaldcrane]

I don't see how it was a mistake.

He wasn't in the perimeter they set, how is that not a mistake? Are you saying they intentionally set a perimeter where he wasn't? lol

[Day]

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/03/22...d-in-stroller/
http://cupertino.patch.com/articles/...ooting-suspect
http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/11/news/mn-64625

Just a few, and let me tell you its a bitch searching for them right now because all you get is Boston till 40 or so pages back in google.