Enforcement Actions in Boston

[Ksandra]

oh, ok


@xaji

I am concerned that the actions of the police forces involved in this scenario sets an unconstitutional precedent that it is okay to search private property without the necessary legal recourse to do so.

It does not matter whether or not anyone did not consent.

these two statements do not work. You say "unconstitutional precedence" and "legal recourse" but then argue people's consent do not matter. It is their consent that MAKES it constitutional and gives them legal recourse. So it matters very very much.

I also think the point about whether or not you would be compensated if you took your case to court is not only not a counterargument; it's a good example of the problem to begin with. It seems like the only way you're going to get justice for having your rights violated is by getting shot.

Again, this makes no sense. Getting compensated from court is the "justice." And, again, your rights would only have been violated if you denied access and they went in anyway.

There are numerous reasons for which someone might not want the police to search their home. Maybe they have youung children; maybe they have a pet that would be substantially frightened; maybe they were having sex; maybe they themselves are in poor health; maybe they're growing pot. And yes, maybe they're doing much more illegal stuff.

Only the children one is somewhat a valid excuse. I mean, I don't think it's that hard to tell the cops, can I take my children outside before you go inside? Fucking lol @ "having sex." You aren't helping your case at all.

Not only is it unlawful

No one has proven that.

Is the fact that they were pretty sure the dude was somewhere in a pretty large perimeter "probable cause" to search every home in that area?

Yep.

[Xajii]

@ xaji

Spell my name right when you're talking to me.

these two statements do not work. You say "unconstitutional precedence" and "legal recourse" but then argue people's consent do not matter. It is their consent that MAKES it constitutional and gives them legal recourse. So it matters very very much.

This seems to be the crux of your argument and you chose to completely cut out the part where I explained WHY I said it doesn't matter whether everyone consented or not. The point is that they would not have honored nonconsent and did not request consent for unoccupied homes. If you disagree with that sentiment then you should at least try and explain why you think the police would have honored nonconsent. You can't cherrypick and try to make it look like I'm contradicting myself when the qualifying statement is RIGHT THERE.

Again, this makes no sense. Getting compensated from court is the "justice." And, again, your rights would only have been violated if you denied access and they went in anyway.

So you agree rights would be violated if they went in without consent? No idea what you are trying to say with the "getting compensation is justice". No shit. That's what I said., Swampdonkey said it would never happen in a court of law unless serious damage was done to your property or person. I addressed this by saying that is part of the problem and not a counterargument.

Only the children one is somewhat a valid excuse. I mean, I don't think it's that hard to tell the cops, can I take my children outside before you go inside? Fucking lol @ "having sex." You aren't helping your case at all.

I'm sorry, but there are tons of reasons I don't want police coming into my home and yes, if I was having sex and the cops interrupted me to violate my rights, I'd be pissed off. And rightly so. The point is that you don't need to have a fucking reason not to allow an unlawful search.

No one has proven that.

Are you seriously asking whether or not it is legal to enter a home without a warrant or consent?

Yep.

Ok

[Nephlite]

I'm sure that Neph and JMC are good guys. I'm sure they joined the police force to uphold the law and help the helpless. I'm sure they have high moral standards and are just great people overall. Let's not pretend that is the norm when it comes to cops. A lot of cops are people who barely made it through high school with a bully complex. Having been in combat with highly trained men that I trusted to have my back and react the proper way in super high stress situations, I have seen the best trained soldiers fuck up and shoot innocent people. I do not trust Barney Fife to make those decisions.

Not sure how to take it but, thanks?

You do realize most police forces have training on par with the military, right? The academy is boot all over again except there's less pushups.

A lot of cops are people who barely made it through high school with a bully complex.

Not that it means anything but the average police department in America at least requires an Associates in Criminal Justice.

Also I would love to point out that you have never talked to a cop. I mean really talked to one and got in to their nitty gritty. You might "know" one or two by association but I doubt you ever sat in a car with one for 10+ hours shooting the shit. I can with absolute confidence that 90% of police officers were bullied in school because they have a different set of morals or ethics that allowed them to become police officers. I got the shit stomped out of me in school constantly because I wasn't the cool kid that liked to hang out, smoke weed, drink, fuck, and pick on little white kids in school. I was always the dumb ass that fought back against people who were bullies. I had a voice and I had a problem with keeping my hands to myself when someone needed a beating.

This isn't the movies here. Most cops don't come from long lines of traditional police families who built legacies and strong departments based on family and ethics. Most cops come from broken families on the verge of poverty who lived in the ghetto or in backwater country. At least 1 in 10 police officers are survivors of sexual abuse. 1 in 4 are survivors of childhood domestic violence. 8 of my squad mates were raised by a single parent and two of us were orphans. All ten of us have been divorced at least once. My Sergeant lost his father in Vietnam and his mother in South-East D.C. during the days of the Dirty Dozen and good police officers were executed for being good. She was a 10 year veteran of the department when she was shot in the head by a police officer who was a gang member and slipped through the hiring process standards.

Every time someone says that police are a bunch of muscled up freaks with superiority complexes need to just stop. We're all humans. Don't let your personal feelings or your idea of police officers as portrayed by the media or by movies affect your judgement of god honest decent people. Some of us have pretty much decided long ago that tomorrow will quite possibly be our last day on Earth. While you sleep comfortably in bed going to your white-collar job, I'm working on my 20th hour on duty filling out paperwork and cleaning the back of my cruiser that some drunk fuck decided to use as his port-a-potty. While you drink coffee in the morning, I'm throwing mine on the ground and running down the street full tilt and getting shot at. Oh sure you can say "Everyone has an equal chance of getting killed today" but my life is that times at least a dozen a day (a dozen or so people I stop on the street every day) who all equally hate me because of who I am. They don't even know me. They judge me instantly because I have a badge.

Exigent circumstances do not apply here.

The Dorner case was mentioned, San Bernardino County Sheriffs office led much of the week-long manhunt. They did not break down any doors. They searched the exteriors of properties looking for signs of forced entry. If residents were home they continued the search elsewhere.

Exigent circumstances would have applied in Watertown only if there was information on which structure the suspect entered (signs of forced entry, credible testimony) Pulling people out of their homes at gunpoint sends a clear message to me: The police will do whatever the fuck they want in an emergency scenario, the law does not apply to them in the performance of their duties.

This is unacceptable. I do not want the police to "rescue the shit out of me".

I would like to remind you that the reason behind the exigent circumstance was because a very dangerous individual who just killed a lot of people and was throwing IED's at police was on the loose. Is that not enough reason to warrant a good search?

Additionally, I want to see evidence of the police in Watertown breaking in doors and searching unoccupied houses. As far as I know they did exterior sweeps of unoccupied houses looking for forced entry and entering those that people gave them permission to come in. The hypothetical we've been discussing is weather or not they had permission to go in and sweep unoccupied houses, pull people out who refuse to let them come in and sweep, all without a warrant. None of those three things happened in Watertown so no, the police did not power trip and suddenly violate hundreds of peoples rights. They didn't "do whatever the fuck they want in an emergency scenario". I'm sure in your mind you're a badass and you'll do okay in these scenario's. Good for you. What about the other dozen or so neighbors in your neighborhood who can't or could potentially be victims? Who cares about them, right?

[Churchill]

I've talked to plenty of cops, know plenty of cops, it attracts a very different psychological profile than the people Noble is talking about.

Edit: I'll also throw out that the FBI attracts (or rather, requires) a very different psychological profile as well.

[Nephlite]

2 things:

I would handle it by taking my team and clearing every house in a large area as if every one of them contained the suspect. I would not ask nicely to enter, or knock on someones door. I would breach the door via mechanical or explosive, I would use flashbangs and callouts (megaphone telling people to get the fuck out) in homes with lots of women and children. I would detain everyone I encounter so that they are more easily corralled. I would systematically do this for every home within my perimeter while using aerial surveillance to cover areas of interest and paths of ingress/egress.

I was also trained to do this by the military and did do this in a time of war, so anything that police do even resembling this is probably not okay.

Second thing is that police aren't there to protect you, they are there to uphold the law. Who cares if he killed a cop? A child? It doesn't fucking matter. You can't (as a police officer) rattle off bullshit example after another when someone sues or gets angry you didn't protect x/y/z person because it's not a police officers job to protect the citizens from danger while simultaneously state that we need to for all intents and purposes suspend the 4th/5th Amendments to search for one 19 years kid. (Public safety)

If you catch him, great. He would have been caught anyway. He was a 19 year old kid, you knew his name, he wasn't financed by Stasi or AQ. He was dead or caught with very little trouble, and if you had actually done your jobs and searched the backyard he would have been caught by 0800 and spared the rest of the world watching tanks roll down US streets.



Pretty much. Though I'd expand upon that and say "best-trained" but little experience (still 19 year old kid) or that it wasn't an accident the civilians got shot lol. Very rarely did something happen like that. I trusted everyone except the AC-130 guys and that was a lesson I learned the hard way.

I see you keep mentioning the kid was 19 years old but that didn't make him any less dangerous. Getting complacent in your old age? Everyone's a target. 19, 10, 20, 90, you're dangerous till you're not dangerous (i.e. dead or cuffed).

[Churchill]

Age is only a reference to his ability to avoid the Police, FBI. He would have been caught. He wasn't trained to avoid detection in Urban SERE, he hasn't spent years doing targeting or avoiding targeting to be able to walk out of the US with his face and name plastered everywhere. He hid in a boat with Police surrounding him.

[Xajii]

I don't feel that it is fair to generalize the personality of a police officer either way. My best childhood friend as a cop, and he's way different than either Neph or Noble described. (Closer to Neph's description, though).

I'll admit I don't have hard evidence that unoccupied homes were broken into - someone else here had mentioned that and I was using it as an example - isn't an exterior search of private property still trespassing, though?

I dont' think anyone is trying to say that this was a huge violation of human rights. It was on a small scale in a difficult circumstance and most, if not all, consented. I think it sets a dangerous precedent that these types of strategies are becoming more commonplace and again, I would like to hear what anyone thinks would have happened if somebody did not consent.

Someone who brought up mandatory DUI check points all the time as a comparison and I find that an apt one. Of course, Ksan says, "Why should I care?" so... maybe some of us value our time and privacy more than others.

[hey]

oh, ok

Does he it really matter? If they were turned away, he wouldn't have been shot. Or is that just fine, as long as he didn't die?

ITT: it's just fine if cops shoot innocent people, as long as they survive.

[Nephlite]

Age is only a reference to his ability to avoid the Police, FBI. He would have been caught. He wasn't trained to avoid detection in Urban SERE, he hasn't spent years doing targeting or avoiding targeting to be able to walk out of the US with his face and name plastered everywhere. He hid in a boat with Police surrounding him.

That was probably the biggest thing on the cops mind. The MIT Police Officer probably didn't think that some kid walking around college was a terrorist. Probably didn't even see it coming.

Training doesn't mean shit if you don't have any will. A well motivated individual was able to: kill 3 people, injure 200 with an IED, kill a (probably) well trained police officer and escape an initial drag net, carjack someone and get chased by the police, get in to a shootout with police injuring a few and throwing more IED's, got rid of his bad wheel (brother) and manage to kill him while escaping and made good his escape on foot after the car was stopped, and avoided capture for several hours and still had enough in him to shoot at the police before being taken down.

With all the hypothetical stuff coming out and more information on the suspects, I wouldn't discount the resourcefulness of an individual who was able to do all that and still managed to keep himself alive long enough to talk. The people who kill themselves before capture aren't the ones you need to worry about (they're dead). It's the ones who keep themselves alive because they have unfinished business that you need to worry about.

[Nephlite]

I'll admit I don't have hard evidence that unoccupied homes were broken into - someone else here had mentioned that and I was using it as an example - isn't an exterior search of private property still trespassing, though?

Unless it's behind a door or it's viewable from the sidewalk (or in most cases, from somewhere other than the property you're trying to view), it doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy so it can be looked at. There's no such thing as exterior private property in D.C. (anything not behind a door is considered public space) but there are some states where "private property" extends to the yard. Guess it depends on the jurisdiction. If anything, going in to the houses might be a no-no or require more evidence, etc. but searching around your house or yard? No way you can argue someone's rights were violated then. There's no privacy if it's in plain view.

I dont' think anyone is trying to say that this was a huge violation of human rights. It was on a small scale in a difficult circumstance and most, if not all, consented. I think it sets a dangerous precedent that these types of strategies are becoming more commonplace and again, I would like to hear what anyone thinks would have happened if somebody did not consent.

I think they would have moved on to the next house. I don't think they would have thrown everyone down and said they have to go in anyways. That's a worst case scenario I was painting and I said that because I would like people to know what a cop would have thought if they were in that exact same scenario. Thinking and acting are two different things and truthfully I would have went back to my old academy script for individuals in high duress:

"Ma'am if there's something you need to tell me urgently then blink twice"

Two blinks and you call in ERT or put two through the door and hope to god the guy doesn't have a grenade.

Also I mentioned this earlier that police tactics are evolving in to more military-aspect because of the level of threats we have to respond to are also evolving. You gonna call in the National Guard to a shooting in D.C. because the suspects have automatic assault rifles and you don't think the cops should have or be trained in the use of military-spec equipment? A capital defense force has never been deployed anywhere in the United States with the purposes of killing or capturing someone. These so called "military tactics" that people say police are using have been used for many many years. Boot and the Academy aren't any different in my eyes. What separates soldiers from police? AIT (Advanced Individual Training)? Police have individual training classes for SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics). Clearing buildings "military style"? Search and Sweep 101 Academy Week 14. Sniper Qualifications for Army? Sniper Qualifications for Police.

[Eurell]

Does he it really matter? If they were turned away, he wouldn't have been shot. Or is that just fine, as long as he didn't die?

ITT: it's just fine if cops shoot innocent people, as long as they survive.

Im confused. Are you saying you'd rather suspect 2 got away, instead of them shooting him and arresting him?

[Xajii]

Unless it's behind a door or it's viewable from the sidewalk (or in most cases, from somewhere other than the property you're trying to view), it doesn't have a reasonable expectation of privacy so it can be looked at. There's no such thing as exterior private property in D.C. (anything not behind a door is considered public space) but there are some states where "private property" extends to the yard. Guess it depends on the jurisdiction. If anything, going in to the houses might be a no-no or require more evidence, etc. but searching around your house or yard? No way you can argue someone's rights were violated then. There's no privacy if it's in plain view.

Huh. I live here and did not know that. Good to know (not that I have my own yard LOL)

And, if that's what you think, then okay. I'm not sure I agree that it would have gone like that.

The blink twice thing sounds so dangerous. Especially if the cops are only traveling in group sof two or so. Would not want to be in that situation. :/

[archibaldcrane]

I would like to remind you that the reason behind the exigent circumstance was because a very dangerous individual who just killed a lot of people and was throwing IED's at police was on the loose. Is that not enough reason to warrant a good search?

Additionally, I want to see evidence of the police in Watertown breaking in doors and searching unoccupied houses. As far as I know they did exterior sweeps of unoccupied houses looking for forced entry and entering those that people gave them permission to come in. The hypothetical we've been discussing is weather or not they had permission to go in and sweep unoccupied houses, pull people out who refuse to let them come in and sweep, all without a warrant. None of those three things happened in Watertown so no, the police did not power trip and suddenly violate hundreds of peoples rights. They didn't "do whatever the fuck they want in an emergency scenario". I'm sure in your mind you're a badass and you'll do okay in these scenario's. Good for you. What about the other dozen or so neighbors in your neighborhood who can't or could potentially be victims? Who cares about them, right?

I do not know for certain they did the second bold either. However, if they didn't do the second bold, then "exigent circumstances" is irrelevant, right? No need to cite that nebulous legal quagmire at all if warrantless searches are not being executed, right?

[Eurell]

I do not know for certain they did the second bold either. However, if they didn't do the second bold, then "exigent circumstances" is irrelevant, right? No need to cite that nebulous legal quagmire at all if warrantless searches are not being executed, right?

I feel like the whole thread is like this though.

The question keeps being raised "what IF people didnt consent" making the entire thing hypothetical. If you're saying there's no reason to bring up exigent circumstances, then honestly, there is no reason to even have this thread, as every person consented to the searches.

[archibaldcrane]

I feel like the whole thread is like this though.

The question keeps being raised "what IF people didnt consent" making the entire thing hypothetical. If you're saying there's no reason to bring up exigent circumstances, then honestly, there is no reason to even have this thread, as every person consented to the searches.

We don't know if that's the case or not though.

[jmc]

Just curious where everyone is getting the "unnoccupied housing" searches from? Was there a story about it, or just assuming the police were searching empty houses?

I can't speak on behalf of what happened during daylight hours, but I do know early friday morning the only unnoccupied houses that were searched were ones we located with open doors, or wide open windows that we believed suspect couldve broken into.

[archibaldcrane]

If that's the case, this may be much ado about nothing.

[Tyrath]

Just curious where everyone is getting the "unnoccupied housing" searches from? Was there a story about it, or just assuming the police were searching empty houses?

I can't speak on behalf of what happened during daylight hours, but I do know early friday morning the only unnoccupied houses that were searched were ones we located with open doors, or wide open windows that we believed suspect couldve broken into.

Yep, there goes this whole hypothetical argument.

[jmc]

Again, it may have been different once the sun came up. Since I was no longer on scene, and was back at the command center.

The plan for friday morning was to lock down the perimeter, and search outside of buildings. If we encountered a open window or a open door (there were a few houses like this) then the tac team would search it. That was the plan until we hit daylight

[archibaldcrane]

jmc, were you also knocking on doors and requesting searches then or no? It's pretty clear they started doing that at one point, right?