Enforcement Actions in Boston

[Charismatic]

Okay, who seriously believes Boston even became anything close to a "Police State"?

I need people to laugh at.

Oh?
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=2be_1366536241

[Churchill]

that guy looked like he gave them permission to enter

[Plow]

yeah the only thing I saw going on there that looked somewhat police-state-ey was them freaking out when they didn't keep their hands up, and the one guy getting patted down

I think I'd be a little unnerved and on edge in that situation if I suddenly came to a house that had like 10 adults in it too, though lol.

[archibaldcrane]

yeah the only thing I saw going on there that looked somewhat police-state-ey was them freaking out when they didn't keep their hands up, and the one guy getting patted down

Well, that, and that they searched a guy's house without a warrant, and without specific information that the suspect they were looking for was in that house.

But you know, other than that, totally kosher.

[Tyrath]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent...ted_States_law

It is kosher actually.

[archibaldcrane]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent...ted_States_law

It is kosher actually.

There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist.

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts

Of course, in this case, searching that home was not necessary. Had they not searched that house, nothing would have changed in this situation.

Cops could throw "exigent circumstance" at nearly every situation of police misconduct if they wanted. I think it's clear that "reasonable persons" could disagree whether entry was necessary in this circumstance.

[dejet]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent...ted_States_law

It is kosher actually.

not really as that wiki says

"Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists."

we can fight over semantics I guess but I can not see the probable cause for no warrant. "there is a guy that killed 3, and hurt 100 people somewhere in the Boston area, maybe" hardly sounds like probable cause really.

if that was true we had a person rape and murder over 10 (know) and maybe far more then that. Under this you would have to agree to lock down and a search of all homes around the Long Beach area 2 years back. This was more of a show of power then anything else.

[archibaldcrane]

Or, if you believe that searching that particular house WAS necessary - tell me how large the search area would have to be before you consider it unnecessary?

[archibaldcrane]

You have to understand, a bunch of itchy-fingered cops in full SWAT gear WILL EVENTUALLY shoot someone without cause if they have to search enough houses. It's an inevitability. You have to balance that risk with the "what if we don't storm this house" risk.

[hey]

Still why anyone would say no I hardly understand... anything they find on you can not be used anyways as it is with no warrant.

A warrant is only needed if they don't have permission. They can search anything you give them permission to without a warrant, and use anything they find against you in court. They're also probably going to make a mess, and not clean anything up, possibly break things, etc. Why would you allow them, unless you had something to gain (like say, you aren't really completely sure someone isn't hiding in your house)?

[dejet]

A warrant is only needed if they don't have permission. They can search anything you give them permission to without a warrant, and use anything they find against you in court. They're also probably going to make a mess, and not clean anything up, possibly break things, etc. Why would you allow them, unless you had something to gain (like say, you aren't really completely sure someone isn't hiding in your house)?

I said that wrong sorry. If I said no and they went anyways... lol my bad >.> I messed that up really badly

[Ksandra]

Guy blows up 200 people, hey is worried about having to vacuum. Sounds about right.

[Plow]

Well, that, and that they searched a guy's house without a warrant, and without specific information that the suspect they were looking for was in that house.

But you know, other than that, totally kosher.

Can you point out the part where they forced their way into the house after someone told them not to?

I'll help you look: it was probably around the part where they voluntarily opened the door and people started walking out of the house cooperatively.



And it's great that you can captain hindsight it up, unfortunately even if they DO find shit, the point there is whether or not they had legit reasoning to be looking.

[archibaldcrane]

Can you point out the part where they forced their way into the house after someone told them not to?

Are you arguing that it would be wrong of them to search the house if they didn't have consent?

A bunch of dudes with guns will get a lot of people to do a lot of things cooperatively. That doesn't mean it's necessarily correct.

Still haven't found anyone willing to say how large of an area they could search and you'd be cool with it because terrorism.

[Plow]

I'm arguing that a large scale response to a direct threat in which pretty much everyone fully cooperated voluntarily and as far as we know not a single person was harmed or punished related to the event being called a police state is pretty fucking drama queen.

[hey]

Still haven't found anyone willing to say how large of an area they could search and you'd be cool with it because terrorism.

One house. If more people want to cooperate and let them search more, that's fine. But if they want to force their way in without permsission, it should be because they know he's in there.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm arguing that a large scale response to a direct threat in which pretty much everyone fully cooperated voluntarily and as far as we know not a single person was harmed or punished related to the event being called a police state is pretty fucking drama queen.

It's closer to a "police state" than we've seen in America in, maybe, my lifetime? But still, no, just no.

There's plenty of more interesting things to discuss in this situation than the semantics of what qualifies as a "police state".

[Plow]

As to how big, I think I'd set the limit at 4200 meters long, 2042 meters wide. Cuz, you know, the limits of what we'll deal with should be completely arbitrary and we should set a precise limit of perimeters for people to think they can just GTA their way out of.


Definitely shouldn't consider the situation and information at hand to make these kind of judgements.

[dejet]

Can you point out the part where they forced their way into the house after someone told them not to?

I'll help you look: it was probably around the part where they voluntarily opened the door and people started walking out of the house cooperatively.


And it's great that you can captain hindsight it up, unfortunately even if they DO find shit, the point there is whether or not they had legit reasoning to be looking.

I bet I can get you to not say a word if I had a few guys with a just knives at your front door. Now throw in SWAT teams with helicopters and automatic guns in the mix. The people had no shot to say "no". You damn well know what would of happened if they did. The cops where very vocal and demanding from that video. A guy who you can see looks nothing like the kid puts his hands up walks out and then puts his hands down. Did they have to really force his hands up again and scream the hole time?

the demands and shouting could of tipped the damn kid off more then they did good... lol

[archibaldcrane]

I agree, the search boundaries of such a situation, citing "exigent circumstances", are pretty fucking arbitrary. I'm glad you agree.