bostonian talk about lockdown

[revelarts]

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/lA69pQY9ldg?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[taft2012]

"Did they read you your Miranda rights?" :laugh2:

Inforwars pothead conservatives watching too much television.

[jimnyc]

A handful of people complaining compared to thousands lining the streets and thanking them. I wonder how much 'leading' was done on the questioning, as it was obvious that things were cut. And it's the same fat bastard that was up there last week claiming that it was the FBI who committed the terror attacks.

[jimnyc]

"Did they read you your Miranda rights?" :laugh2:

Inforwars pothead conservatives watching too much television.

Infowars leading these people to make it sound as if they should have had miranda rights read to them, even though they weren't detained and being interrogated. Hilarious.

[revelarts]

lol

funny what some people take away from various reports.
Taft seems you only heard Miranda rights used improperly. Jim thought that was note worthy as well.

Jim you assume the people were lead along, because you saw other people on TV cheering the cops sooo i guess no one really complained ever.
and you make some cracks about the interviewers weight.
But those are the highlights and important points you guys get from this.

amazing.

here are a few things i get.
1-more than one person says that the police did NOT request to enter the homes they demanded it, even after reassurance that no one else was in the home.

2-the one woman mentions that the swat/soldiers/police whatever searched a house and garage across the street from the home where the boat with the perp was but didn't search the boat. left the area and lifted the lockdown . THEN the home owner saw blood on the OUTSIDE of his boat and the flap and called the cops back to the same area.

3-police picking up people on the street cuffing them transporting them to different areas and releasing them.
when they have the description and pictures of the bombers already why are they wasting time cuffing and moving innocent people?

4- and the police forcing several people out of their homes to search them then leaving the home doors open for anyone .. including the bomber, to come IN!!

that's what sticks out in my mind.
oh And the intense searches of press people. -lay on the ground- for what?


I don't doubt that people cheered the police but as the young lady said. lockdown the whole city for 1 19 year old kid?
TO ME it seem excessive, Based on the info we have it' was over the top IMO. others love the police going door to door pushing old people out of their homes without their meds and leaving their doors wide open all night.
'nothing wrong with that...HORRAY for the police. they people should be grateful and STHU. '

mm sorry I see some problems here.

[Drummond]

lol

funny what some people take away from various reports.
Taft seems you only heard Miranda rights used improperly. Jim thought that was note worthy as well.

Jim you assume the people were lead along, because you saw other people on TV cheering the cops sooo i guess no one really complained ever.
and you make some cracks about the interviewers weight.
But those are the highlights and important points you guys get from this.

amazing.

here are a few things i get.
1-more than one person says that the police did NOT request to enter the homes they demanded it, even after reassurance that no one else was in the home.

2-the one woman mentions that the swat/soldiers/police whatever searched a house and garage across the street from the home where the boat with the perp was but didn't search the boat. left the area and lifted the lockdown . THEN the home owner saw blood on the OUTSIDE of his boat and the flap and called the cops back to the same area.

3-police picking up people on the street cuffing them transporting them to different areas and releasing them.
when they have the description and pictures of the bombers already why are they wasting time cuffing and moving innocent people?

4- and the police forcing several people out of their homes to search them then leaving the home doors open for anyone .. including the bomber, to come IN!!

that's what sticks out in my mind.
oh And the intense searches of press people. -lay on the ground- for what?


I don't doubt that people cheered the police but as the young lady said. lockdown the whole city for 1 19 year old kid?
TO ME it seem excessive, Based on the info we have it' was over the top IMO. others love the police going door to door pushing old people out of their homes without their meds and leaving their doors wide open all night.
'nothing wrong with that...HORRAY for the police. they people should be grateful and STHU. '

mm sorry I see some problems here.

Just for a change, we have the basis for agreement.

As I've posted before ... London had its 7/7 attack. Over 50 people dead, many more maimed and otherwise injured. Attacks were made on various parts of the Tube network, and also a London bus.

The nearest we got to a 'lockdown' was to suspend public transport, both within London and on the routes leading into it, for a few hours. And even that didn't persist up to the evening rush hour .. public services (.. those that physically COULD, anyway ..), including all those exiting the city, resumed by that point.

I should know, as, during those times, I worked in London, and was affected by the stoppage.

No harm came of limiting that response to the terrorism of that day. People still, by and large, went about their business. It all worked out.

[Marcus Aurelius]

lol

funny what some people take away from various reports.
Taft seems you only heard Miranda rights used improperly. Jim thought that was note worthy as well.

Jim you assume the people were lead along, because you saw other people on TV cheering the cops sooo i guess no one really complained ever.
and you make some cracks about the interviewers weight.
But those are the highlights and important points you guys get from this.

amazing.

here are a few things i get.
1-more than one person says that the police did NOT request to enter the homes they demanded it, even after reassurance that no one else was in the home.

2-the one woman mentions that the swat/soldiers/police whatever searched a house and garage across the street from the home where the boat with the perp was but didn't search the boat. left the area and lifted the lockdown . THEN the home owner saw blood on the OUTSIDE of his boat and the flap and called the cops back to the same area.

3-police picking up people on the street cuffing them transporting them to different areas and releasing them.
when they have the description and pictures of the bombers already why are they wasting time cuffing and moving innocent people?

4- and the police forcing several people out of their homes to search them then leaving the home doors open for anyone .. including the bomber, to come IN!!

that's what sticks out in my mind.
oh And the intense searches of press people. -lay on the ground- for what?


I don't doubt that people cheered the police but as the young lady said. lockdown the whole city for 1 19 year old kid?
TO ME it seem excessive, Based on the info we have it' was over the top IMO. others love the police going door to door pushing old people out of their homes without their meds and leaving their doors wide open all night.
'nothing wrong with that...HORRAY for the police. they people should be grateful and STHU. '

mm sorry I see some problems here.

Here's a hypothetical I laid out when this happened...

Police come to your door in the search area, and ask if they can come in and search... you have a gun to your head, behind the close door, so you tell them no... they politely go on their way, and you and your family are dead 5 minutes later.

Or...

Police come to your door in the search area, and ask if they can come in and search... you say no, of your own free will... they politely go on their way, and the bomber was hiding in the basement without your knowledge... he then kills several members of your family when you discover him, and escapes... you then sue the police for not doing their job and searching your house.

[jimnyc]

funny what some people take away from various reports.

I saw only one report, from an Infowars reporter.


Taft seems you only heard Miranda rights used improperly. Jim thought that was note worthy as well.

Taft properly laughed at the incorrect statement, and I too pointed out that it had no come close to reaching the threshold where miranda was necessary.


Jim you assume the people were lead along, because you saw other people on TV cheering the cops sooo i guess no one really complained ever.

I said it was possible, and wonder if they were. And I heard the cutting of the tape. I'm not saying they purposely edited out anything. Hell, maybe they edited segments to save time for all I know. And me pointing out that many more were happy with the authorities involved, does not mean that no one ever complained. That's just making things up.


and you make some cracks about the interviewers weight.

Yes, as in the first few seconds of seeing the fat bastard I remembered who he was, that he was the guy blaming the FBI for the recent terrorist attack. I don't believe his weight had anything to do with anything other than how I remembered the fat bastard.


But those are the highlights and important points you guys get from this.

I got that a group that thrives on conspiracies went to the area and tried to drum up some conspiracy business. They probably aired a few segments of people that are in fact unhappy with the way things were handled. I have little doubt that some there are pissed. They probably came across others that had no beef, but didn't air those "interviews". I think they found a handful of people who took issue with some things and recorded it. Big deal. It's no different than the debates we have had here. These people being angry changes nothing about the legality of what was done. And forgive me if I don't go gaga over small snippets of interviews from a conspiracy site and an individual who has blamed the FBI without a shred of definitive information. They have zero credibility.

We'll have a more definitive look when the courts decide and clarify. Do you, or anyone else, have a list of any lawsuits filed as of yet?

[jimnyc]

here are a few things i get.
1-more than one person says that the police did NOT request to enter the homes they demanded it, even after reassurance that no one else was in the home.

2-the one woman mentions that the swat/soldiers/police whatever searched a house and garage across the street from the home where the boat with the perp was but didn't search the boat. left the area and lifted the lockdown . THEN the home owner saw blood on the OUTSIDE of his boat and the flap and called the cops back to the same area.

3-police picking up people on the street cuffing them transporting them to different areas and releasing them.
when they have the description and pictures of the bombers already why are they wasting time cuffing and moving innocent people?

4- and the police forcing several people out of their homes to search them then leaving the home doors open for anyone .. including the bomber, to come IN!!

Can you please source these 4 for us, minus an infowars interview. MSM covering any of this and follow up on it?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Can you please source these 4 for us, minus an infowars interview. MSM covering any of this and follow up on it?

I doubt it. I've searched since I read his post, and I got squat that did not originate from PrisonPlanet.

[revelarts]

Can you please source these 4 for us, minus an infowars interview. MSM covering any of this and follow up on it?

so you think those people were paid or lying or what?

you come up with a a MSM that shows them saying different.
sheesh
just because you don't like some of what Jones says doesn't mean they are putting words in peoples mouth. get real man.
The people where telling him what happened to them. you've got a beef with THEM. not with infowars.

[revelarts]

Here's a hypothetical I laid out when this happened...

Police come to your door in the search area, and ask if they can come in and search... you have a gun to your head, behind the close door, so you tell them no... they politely go on their way, and you and your family are dead 5 minutes later.
So they come to the house i tell them no But i'm Blinking or signaling like a maniac and the police sneak around back.
Or
I tell them no, they force the door anyway and the guy shoots me in the head and shoots a few cops in the face.




Police come to your door in the search area, and ask if they can come in and search... you say no, of your own free will... they politely go on their way, and the bomber was hiding in the basement without your knowledge... he then kills several members of your family when you discover him, and escapes... you then sue the police for not doing their job and searching your house. In that case it's on me. But i don't sue the police.



The Police are not gods. they have a job an and important role. and important boundaries that we've set up to maintain a free country. Safety is important but not at the cost of all of our rights. Without a warrant the police have no right to come into my house. that's not part of their authority. If they give a good reason and i agree they are welcomed, fine. but if you say no, they are legally bound to obey the law as well as I.

[Marcus Aurelius]

so you think those people were paid or lying or what?

you come up with a a MSM that shows them saying different.
sheesh
just because you don't like some of what Jones says doesn't mean they are putting words in peoples mouth. get real man.
The people where telling him what happened to them. you've got a beef with THEM. not with infowars.

I believe his point was that it's not exactly smart to take your information from a single source, that no one else here seems to be able to corroborate, and consider it Gospel.

I've not found a single story on these people or anyone like them in any other place but Alex Jones site. MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, local Boston media... nothing.

[taft2012]

A handful of people complaining compared to thousands lining the streets and thanking them.

^^^ This.

Virtually a once in a lifetime event, probably the first time ever in Boston, and we're supposed to believe this somehow portends the end of American liberties. :laugh2:

This is completely lacking in common sense as the schoolkids being suspended for shooting pencils.

[revelarts]

I believe his point was that it's not exactly smart to take your information from a single source, that no one else here seems to be able to corroborate, and consider it Gospel.
There were several local people interviewed. they gave their account of their personal stories.
Choose to believe them or Not Marcus. but it's BS to assume they all are lying or paid without some evidence to prove that. If the interviews had been done by O'riely the Left wouldn't believe it.
but would it changed there stories? If the interviews had been done by Rachel Maddow most of the people here would doubt that too. but would it changed there stories?
the InterviewERS are not the main issue That's My point ONLY the accounts themselves.

If it were only ONE person you might have a better case but it was several people.
some of the Benghazi Whistle blowers are completely UNKNOWN but that story is accepted without questions like theses.




I've not found a single story on these people or anyone like them in any other place but Alex Jones site. MSNBC, CBS, ABC, FOX, CNN, local Boston media... nothing.

Are any of those source looking for people like this? Or asking questions like this? this is what Jones Does (for better or for worse) You won't find much on the Gosnell trial from many of those groups you mention above. Where do you have to go to get most of you info about the Trial and other related abortion issues? PRO_LIFE web sites, why because thats what they do. will Pro-choice people Pitch and moan about the "source"? sure, but if it's interviews women who have been hurt by Abortionist Should those womans testimony be rejected OUT OF HAND with the comment 'I don't find ANY of the interviews about those abortion clinics doing those things but from that Pro-Life site ...nothing.'
why do you think you find no other interviews with those people?

and no one says "it's Gospel" or that InfoWars should be a Sole source. they have very little original content, and cross the line in more areas than one. But IMO it's ridiculous to discount these interviews because you don't like what all of the people are saying.

you guys only have a problem with the content, Do you doubt the bullets holes in their homes as well? do you doubt the times they praised the police in the interview as well?
no, you guys are just a lil pissed that they described the police acting poorly/illegally as well.
sorry not everyone like what the police there. a lot of people loved it.
do you really believe there was NO ONE that complained? Is that even realistic. If they had done everything perfectly you could find people that complain.
you guy act like it's some Space alien talk that some people didn't like the way things happened nd pointed out real problems

[taft2012]

do you really believe there was NO ONE that complained? Is that even realistic. If they had done everything perfectly you could find people that complain.
you guy act like it's some Space alien talk that some people didn't like the way things happened nd pointed out real problems

No, that's not what we're saying at all.

If you look hard enough, you'll always find crackpot liberals and pothead conservatives pissing and moaning about stupid crap.

And the rest of us are free to point fingers and laugh at them, which is what we're doing.

[revelarts]

No, that's not what we're saying at all.
If you look hard enough, you'll always find crackpot liberals and pothead conservatives pissing and moaning about stupid crap.
And the rest of us are free to point fingers and laugh at them, which is what we're doing.

Your free to assume that anyone who complains about police actions are crackpots and potheads.
And you are free to assume that finding a bad cop is like finding Big Foot too.

we are all allowed our fantasies.

[taft2012]

Your free to assume that anyone who complains about police actions are crackpots and potheads.

Is that what I said?


And you are free to assume that finding a bad cop is like finding Big Foot too.

Is that what I said?


we are all allowed our fantasies.

*THAT'S* what I said. And yours are quite delusional.

[jimnyc]

so you think those people were paid or lying or what?

you come up with a a MSM that shows them saying different.
sheesh
just because you don't like some of what Jones says doesn't mean they are putting words in peoples mouth. get real man.
The people where telling him what happened to them. you've got a beef with THEM. not with infowars.

It would have been sufficient to just say NO, I don't have anything to corroborate any of these stories other than from Infowars. I can't find the MSM saying otherwise, or anything at all, or any other news stations at all. Likely because most won't go on air and blame the FBI with no facts whatsoever.

[jimnyc]

Is that what I said?



Is that what I said?



*THAT'S* what I said. And yours are quite delusional.

Words placed in your mouth? Never would have guessed it! :coffee:

[revelarts]

Nothing nowhere no MSM all crack pots potsmokers we laughs at them all, police are good, people cheer no complain, no trouble, no wrong
blah blah

you won't find it if your not looking


Time Magazine
"
At around 6:45 a.m., a house kitty-corner from us was swarmed by a huge group of what looked like police or soldiers with guns drawn. They left, but a police car has been at our corner all day.

At 1:45 this afternoon, there was a pounding on our door. I was shaking and asked, “Who is it?” They said it was the police, but I was still scared to open the door. I sent my 6-year-old daughter to the third floor. I didn’t want her to see any of this. She knows there were explosions at the marathon on Monday and that people were hurt. She knows that the police think they know who did it, and lots of people are looking for them and keeping us safe. Still, when the police banged on the door, I hustled her out. I don’t want her to see her neighborhood swarming with guns.

When I opened the door, there were three police officers in fatigues standing there with huge guns, pointing into our house and at me. I know these people are here to protect me, but I have never stared into the barrel of a gun before, and I hope I never have to again.

They asked, “Is everything O.K. upstairs?” When I told them yes, they said to stay inside and keep our doors locked. They swarmed all around the house; they looked into our garage and every garbage can on the street. Then they moved on to the next house and the next one. When they finished our block, they drove off in a big, black armored vehicle."


....


"I know the chief of police of Watertown, and I have no doubts about him. I have to trust that they’re doing the best for public safety, but it’s overwhelming. I don’t think it’s overkill, but how can one person cause all this."

Read more: http://nation.time.com/2013/04/19/a-town-under-seige-watertown-residents-describe-life-under-lockdown/#ixzz2ShtidXWg



---------------------------------------

"“It’s sad to see people just can’t go out and do things, I think we all should, we can’t let these people push us around or whoever is doing this,” said Watertown resident Paul Malone."
http://www.wpri.com/dpp/news/local_news/se_mass/watertown-residents-react-to-search

------------------------------------------

Ck the 1st 2:mins here
Ordered out of house Point Guns in faces of men holding babies.
One guy sounds like Some People they like the police pointing guns at him.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5nDWdM9-AnM?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>



Below Same lady that said the cops put her out of her house without her meds and left her door open.
she doesn't mention that in this interview..
they MUST HAVE EDITED IT OUT OR SUMTHINN .:rolleyes:
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1al5Ij-5vug?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


Here She says she was ordered to get out.
<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/5MIIjIkdtyQ?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>


Young lady says people in her complex told to lay on ground and searches, and multiple homes searches. no details
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THUAw-tJQwI



https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BINY_9UCcAAjtXi.jpg


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BINM28bCUAEKYxR.jpg



Here is One home vid of a Swat/NatGaurd? guy at the door ASKING.. seriously asking if they are OK. letting them know they check the yard and leavning. There's NOTHING wrong with that.
That's great GOOD JOB police.
no complaints about that.
But the lock down bit in general, we'll Like i said , for 1 kid, a million people stop what they are doing that's overkill IMO.

<iframe src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Z0mU7VATsC8?feature=player_detailpage" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="360" width="640"></iframe>

[Marcus Aurelius]

Euronews?

Skype?

Really?

Wow.

As for the CNN, not nearly as bad as you're making it out to be.


Ordered out of house Point Guns in faces of men holding babies. He said pointing guns. He did not say 'pointing guns in my face'. Believe it or not, that's a fairly large difference.

[jimnyc]

He said pointing guns. He did not say 'pointing guns in my face'. Believe it or not, that's a fairly large difference.

It looked to me like the cops all had the guns at their side and ready, but certainly not sticking them in the faces of people as the news station and Rev would have you believe. Whatever though, some are not going to support the job the police/swat/fbi did and others are, and I doubt either will change the others mind. I'm supposed to think it was wrong based on a few interviews from a conspiracy theorist... what if I post interviews from judges and attorneys explaining why their actions were within the law? Would it change anyone's mind, considering their legal opinions are probably more valid than ours and those being interviewed?

I think these people should be filling suit or seeking a rep like the ACLU instead of giving interviews to conspiracy sites. Let the courts decide if they acted improperly.

[jimnyc]

Apparently we have a "shadow government" at play, according to the same team and Alex Jones himself. This is the guy I want in charge of delivering the news. :rolleyes:

http://youtu.be/4Do4g1P5eJ0

[Marcus Aurelius]

It looked to me like the cops all had the guns at their side and ready, but certainly not sticking them in the faces of people as the news station and Rev would have you believe. Whatever though, some are not going to support the job the police/swat/fbi did and others are, and I doubt either will change the others mind. I'm supposed to think it was wrong based on a few interviews from a conspiracy theorist... what if I post interviews from judges and attorneys explaining why their actions were within the law? Would it change anyone's mind, considering their legal opinions are probably more valid than ours and those being interviewed?

I think these people should be filling suit or seeking a rep like the ACLU instead of giving interviews to conspiracy sites. Let the courts decide if they acted improperly.

If this happened, and it was such a widespread problem, where are all the interviews, lawsuits, people seeking damages fro the police and city?

[revelarts]

SO do you guys think the Police did everything perfectly?
If not what do you think they did wrong?
and present your triple referenced MSM right wing only evidence to show it to be wrong.

And here's just 2 simply questions.
by what law do the police have the right to point guns at you --but not your face- and force you to leave your home & search your house? By what law do they demand that you say home ... or else?

the city martial law law?
the 19 yrs old bomber on the loose law?
the bad guy in the neighborhood law?
The I'm the police and your not law?
The everyone's scared do what i say law?
The, we make up the rules as we go law or the this situation is different law?

you guys claim you love the law but it seems you just love police action, no matter what form it takes in the U.S..

I say, just search my yard and open garage, anything else use the real law.
unless you have specific evidence, Get a warrant.

[Marcus Aurelius]

SO do you guys think the Police did everything perfectly?
If not what do you think they did wrong?
and present your triple referenced MSM right wing only evidence to show it to be wrong.

And here's just 2 simply questions.
by what law do the police have the right to point guns at you --but not your face- and force you to leave your home & search your house? By what law do they demand that you say home ... or else?

the city martial law law?
the 19 yrs old bomber on the loose law?
the bad guy in the neighborhood law?
The I'm the police and your not law?
The everyone's scared do what i say law?
The, we make up the rules as we go law or the this situation is different law?

you guys claim you love the law but it seems you just love police action, no matter what form it takes in the U.S..

I say, just search my yard and open garage, anything else use the real law.
unless you have specific evidence, Get a warrant.

http://www.clker.com/cliparts/0/d/6/2/1194986453169663323smiley006.svg.med.png

[jimnyc]

SO do you guys think the Police did everything perfectly?

Perfectly? Doubtful. Not many instances of hunting a terrorist through residential neighborhoods. I'd say they had to make harsh decisions by the minute. Maybe they'll learn from this and make changes going forward.


If not what do you think they did wrong and were is triple referenced evidiece to show it to be wrong.

I don't think they cast the net wide enough, or they may have reeled him in even sooner. But with things closed tight, time was on their side and the terrorist had little choice but to hide.


And here's just 2 simply questions.
by what law do the police have the right to point guns at you --but not your face- and force you to leave your home search your house? By what law do they demand that you say home ... or else?

There's no law that ever allows a cop to point guns, it's simply something they are trained for and they make decisions as to when they may take them out of their holster. As for the demands of getting out and allowing them to search, this has been discussed at length and beaten to death already. Some of us feel the exigent circumstances allowed them to search the entire area for a known terrorist on the loose. Most legal analysts I've watched on the tube seem to agree. Once these people file suit, I suppose we'll see what the courts believe and how high in our court system it goes.


the city martial law law?

Martial law was not declared


the 19 yrs old bomber on the loose law?

A known terrorist and cop killer on the loose - serve the public and keep them safe law.


the bad guy in the neighborhood law?

That kinda is what police get paid to do, no?


The I'm the police and your not law?

I am trained to fight the bad guy, please allow me to do my job?


The everyone's scared do what i say law?

The everyone SHOULD be scared, but let us do our job law?


The, we make up the rules as we go law the this situation is different law?

I'd agree that a terrorist on the loose in a suburban neighborhood is different.


you guys claim you love the law but it seem you just love police action no matter what form it takes.

I'm FAR from a person liking "police action". With that said, I do expect the police and related authorities to do their jobs. I don't want to sit on my front porch and tell a cop when and when it's not OK for him/her to perform the duties they were trained to do and likely ordered to do on that day.


I say, just search my yard and open garage, anything else use the real law.
unless you have specific evidence, Get a warrant.

I wonder if anyone actually did take that stance that day? I honestly don't know. Do we have a lot of people coming forward saying they told the police they couldn't enter their home and they did anyway?

[revelarts]

cry face

the
-we did it, real sorry you don't like it, cry me a river Law.-
That's about what i thought.

we love big brother

gentlemen, enjoy your police actions
more to come

[jimnyc]

the
-we did it, real sorry you don't like it, cry me a river Law.-
That's about what i thought.

we love big brother

gentlemen, enjoy your police actions
more to come

C'mon, Rev, come gimme a hug! Don't be mad at me, bro! :wraparms:

[Marcus Aurelius]

C'mon, Rev, come gimme a hug! Don't be mad at me, bro! :wraparms:

http://kepfeltoltes.hu/120926/you-mad-bro_www.kepfeltoltes.hu_.jpg

[revelarts]

http://www.anunews.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/aa-police-state-good-poster.jpg


http://www.libertariannews.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/aa-police-state.jpg

http://ts2.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4918168021371137&pid=15.1&H=160&W=122

[revelarts]

http://www.lovethetruth.com/government/police_state/pledge.jpg

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.lovethetruth.com/government/police_state/pledge.jpg




You should add 'I promise to drastically over react to anything the government does that I perceive is negative'

[revelarts]

You should add 'I promise to drastically over react to anything the government does that I perceive is negative'

Asking for a warrant for a home search is "overreacting" now?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Asking for a warrant for a home search is "overreacting" now?


The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

A guy running around with bombs, after having just blown a few up, seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to search houses for.

[revelarts]

A guy running around with bombs, after having just blown a few up, seems to me to be a perfectly reasonable thing to search houses for.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was reason to search the public area no REASON to search specific homes.
REASON as in specific evidence. a broken window, a door ajar etc...

amendment Says the place, as in singular.
Not the general 5 mile AREA to be search. or Group of Homes to be searched.

Area warrants BS, don't apply to homes, And they didn't even claim to have one.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp

they claim some "public safety exception" for one kid with a gun and maybe a pipe bomb.
As Drummond said , after the 7/7 bombing they didn't do all that.

Its was overkill. unreasonable. And don't force me out of my home at gun point.
get a warrant.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

There was reason to search the public area no REASON to search specific homes.
REASON as in specific evidence. a broken window, a door ajar etc...

amendment Says the place, as in singular.
Not the general 5 mile AREA to be search. or Group of Homes to be searched.

Area warrants BS, don't apply to homes, And they didn't even claim to have one.

http://nationalparalegal.edu/conlawcrimproc_public/protectionfromsearches&seizures/extowarrantreq.asp

they claim some "public safety exception" for one kid with a gun and maybe a pipe bomb.
As Drummond said , after the 7/7 bombing they didn't do all that.

Its was overkill. unreasonable. And don't force me out of my home at gun point.
get a warrant.

you're certainly entitled to your opinion. Mines happens to differ.

[taft2012]

Jimmy, I formally request the tinfoil hat smiley.

[jimnyc]

Jimmy, I formally request the tinfoil hat smiley.


:tinfoil:

Already had it!

[revelarts]

Asking for a warrant for a home search is "overreacting" now?

People asking for a warrant for a home search calls for a "tinfoil hat" now too?

[jimnyc]

People asking for a warrant for a home search calls for a "tinfoil hat" now too?

I had asked that earlier with no reply. Do we have people who supposedly told cops that they cannot enter their homes? To get a warrant? I saw a handful of complaints about how they police performed their jobs but haven't seen anyone claiming they demanded a warrant and/or wouldn't allow them into their homes.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/64461/


Under the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances), like the threat of imminent danger, a warrant isn't necessarily needed, but the police must still have probable cause.

It seems unlikely that many residents of Watertown felt like exploring that particular legal nuance by refusing the police entry. Nor is it not clear if any did; a spokesman for the Watertown police department didn't answer a question to that effect. It is clear that doing so would have required a great deal of courage.


Rose said that the organization had received a number of concerned comments from people about the searches that took place, including some from residents of Watertown. None, however, from people whose homes had been searched.


"Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search," the ACLU's Rose pointed out. She noted a situation several years ago in which the Boston police wanted to conduct door-to-door searches seeking out illegal firearms. In that case, the ACLU spoke out against the proposal, and it was dropped.


The images from Watertown were scenes from a movie brought to life (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/surreal-sight-swat-teams-banal-suburbs-boston/64398/). Heavily armed and armored law enforcement officials knocking on doors with rifle-toting backup. But there's no reason to assume it was an infringement of civil liberties.

[revelarts]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/64461/


No reason to assume it's an infringment...


that's not news that's commentary.


...Under the Fourth Amendment (http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/fourth_amendment), homeowners have the right to refuse a request for a search if the police don't have a warrant. But that rule has an exception. If there are exigent circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances), ...

from the exigent circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances) link

"In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_test) for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances#cite_note-1)



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.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances#cite_note-2)"

...
In so many other Bombing cases none of the extraordinary warrentless house to house Searches were done.

Imemint implies you KNOW something is happening right now.
not HE MIGHT BE in your House
But SOMEONE SAW HIM go into your House. We SEE Your home has been broken into....

He in the areas stuff doesn't fly.
At least not to a reasonable person thinking of the level of danger one kid with a handgun might present.

There are times when Several prisoners murderers and rapist have escaped from jails or prisons and they don't do what they they did in Boston.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531880,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/23/indiana.prison.escape/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/02/police-capture-indiana-murderer-after-mistaken-release-in-chicago/

[jimnyc]

^^ Kinda like I said from the beginning. The whole thing revolves around whether the police searches were reasonable in nature, pertaining to the 4th. I think they were reasonable. Some disagree. That's cool. I'd rather see less infowars though and someone actually complaining the appropriate way. I've yet to see anyone make an official complaint or file a suit yet, but it could still be forthcoming.

[jimnyc]

Imemint implies you KNOW something is happening right now.
not HE MIGHT BE in your House
But SOMEONE SAW HIM go into your House. We SEE Your home has been broken into....

Let's look at that line again:


An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence.

It is to PREVENT imminent danger or to FORESTALL the imminent escape of a suspect, you know, the one they saw leaving the scene in that vicinity. A man running around, suspected of killing a cop, and on video committing a terrorist attack via bombing, seems like a very reasonable suspicion of the authorities to have at the time.

[revelarts]

Let's look at that line again:



It is to PREVENT imminent danger or to FORESTALL the imminent escape of a suspect, you know, the one they saw leaving the scene in that vicinity. A man running around, suspected of killing a cop, and on video committing a terrorist attack via bombing, seems like a very reasonable suspicion of the authorities to have at the time.

You can only prevent and forestall if you have real evidence that a person is in a specific home.
A door to door is a SEARCH not and act of prevention.

and your reading of the law is just a thin veil of a legal excuse to pull over the wholesale warrantless search seems to me.

[jimnyc]

You can only prevent and forestall if you have real evidence that a person is in a specific home.
A door to door is a SEARCH not and act of prevention.

and your reading of the law is just a thin veil of a legal excuse to pull over the wholesale warrantless search seems to me.

And you're trying to twist the words to make it only fit a particular circumstance. One can VERY easily prevent and forestall and a larger scale, and they did. They prevented any further attacks. These guys were in possession of more bombs and wanted NYC next. They couldn't even make it back to their homes, let alone another city. It very well forestalled the escape of the suspect as well. He knew the place was hunkered down and police everywhere. He was cornered although not caught. It kept him in that area and at bay. Then they got him when a home owner saw him in a boat.

You've not answered my other questions although I have asked several times now - WHO demanded the police get a warrant? WHO refused to allow them in their homes without a warrant?

[Marcus Aurelius]

that's not news that's commentary.



from the exigent circumstances (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances) link

"In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_test) for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances#cite_note-1)



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.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstances#cite_note-2)"

...
In so many other Bombing cases none of the extraordinary warrentless house to house Searches were done.

Imemint implies you KNOW something is happening right now.
not HE MIGHT BE in your House
But SOMEONE SAW HIM go into your House. We SEE Your home has been broken into....

He in the areas stuff doesn't fly.
At least not to a reasonable person thinking of the level of danger one kid with a handgun might present.

There are times when Several prisoners murderers and rapist have escaped from jails or prisons and they don't do what they they did in Boston.


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,531880,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/07/23/indiana.prison.escape/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/02/02/police-capture-indiana-murderer-after-mistaken-release-in-chicago/

ever wonder why YOU are the ONLY person on this board whining like this?

[revelarts]

And you're trying to twist the words to make it only fit a particular circumstance. One can VERY easily prevent and forestall and a larger scale, and they did. They prevented any further attacks. These guys were in possession of more bombs and wanted NYC next. They couldn't even make it back to their homes, let alone another city. It very well forestalled the escape of the suspect as well. He knew the place was hunkered down and police everywhere. He was cornered although not caught. It kept him in that area and at bay. Then they got him when a home owner saw him in a boat.

You've not answered my other questions although I have asked several times now - WHO demanded the police get a warrant? WHO refused to allow them in their homes without a warrant?

You don't accept my "sources" so what the use putting them up Jim. You saw video of more than one person who said they were intimidated into letting the cops in. If cops are pointing guns--- in your general direction--- and say let me in, most people won't think to ask for a warrant at that moment.


ever wonder why YOU are the ONLY person on this board whining like this?

Maybe i'm the only person that cares more about the Constitution and bill of rights than a 19 year old boy with a gun loose on the streets.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=636720#post636720)
ever wonder why YOU are the ONLY person on this board whining like this?



Maybe i'm the only person that cares more about the Constitution and bill of rights than a 19 year old boy with a gun on the street.

No. I think you just like to whine about 'big brother'.

[Marcus Aurelius]

And you're trying to twist the words to make it only fit a particular circumstance. One can VERY easily prevent and forestall and a larger scale, and they did. They prevented any further attacks. These guys were in possession of more bombs and wanted NYC next. They couldn't even make it back to their homes, let alone another city. It very well forestalled the escape of the suspect as well. He knew the place was hunkered down and police everywhere. He was cornered although not caught. It kept him in that area and at bay. Then they got him when a home owner saw him in a boat.

You've not answered my other questions although I have asked several times now - WHO demanded the police get a warrant? WHO refused to allow them in their homes without a warrant?

according to the ACLU, no one.

[jimnyc]

You don't accept my "sources" so what the use putting them up Jim. You saw video of more than one person who said they were intimidated into letting the cops in. If cops are pointing guns--- in your general direction--- and say let me in, most people won't think to ask for a warrant at that moment.

If these people demanded warrants and/or refused to allow police in, then surely they have filed suits/claims. I will be more than happy to accept those sources.


according to the ACLU, no one.

Similar to a car search, unless the owner refuses the search, demands a warrant or refuses entry for some reason, they can search. The only thing they can do AFTER THE FACT, would be to suppress evidence at a court hearing for an illegal search. Since there is no court hearing here, and no evidence, they have nothing to fight. Their only fight now then would be to bring it to civil courts or have legislators perform an inquiry and make changes.

[revelarts]

The one guy on the CNN clip Clip said _not the guy with the kid-- They had guns pointed down on me and told me to leave my house i tried to ask what for can .. They just yelled at me to leave.
That's illegal search if they have ZERO evidence of trouble at that house.

But Jim i don't understand you asking for lawsuit info, or you won't believe, does everyone file a lawsuits after their rights have been violated by the police or the state? no.
That does NOT mean that the law hasn't been Broken if no charges have been filed. People have been raped and not filed charges.


A home search is not the same as a car search BTW.


Below Local Lawyer questioning Boston area searches
And Another Deputy Sheriff pointing out.. well basically saying the same things i've said.
http://www.wkrg.com/story/22058099/did-boston-police-go-too-far-during-search

<script src="http://www.google-analytics.com/ga.js" async="" type="text/javascript"></script><script type="text/javascript" src="http://WKRG.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/WNVideo.js?rnd=21208;hostDomain=www.wkrg.com;playe rWidth=630;playerHeight=385;isShowIcon=true;clipId =8804652;flvUri=;partnerclipid=;adTag=News;adverti singZone=;enableAds=true;landingPage=;islandingPag eoverride=false;playerType=STANDARD_EMBEDDEDscript ;controlsType=fixed"></script><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="http://content.worldnow.com/global/css/_pub/off-platform.min.css?ver=2013-04-17-0400"><script id="wnAffiliateConfig" type="text/javascript" src="http://WKRG.images.worldnow.com/interface/js/wnaffiliateconfig.js?ver=2013-04-17-0400"></script><script id="wnOffPlatform" type="text/javascript" src="http://content.worldnow.com/global/js/_pub/off-platform.min.js?ver=2013-04-17-0400"></script><style type="text/css">#divWNVideoCanvas21208 {top:25px; left:0px; position:absolute}#divWNHeadline21208 {top:0px; left:0px; position:absolute}#divWNWidgetsContainer21208 {position:relative;overflow:hidden;height:410px;wi dth:630px;}</style>
<object data="http://www.wkrg.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNHeadline.swf?ver=2013-04-17-0400" name="WNHeadlineDEFAULTdivWNHeadline21208" id="WNHeadlineDEFAULTdivWNHeadline21208" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="25" width="630">





</object>

<object data="http://www.wkrg.com/global/video/flash/widgets/WNVideoCanvas2.swf?ver=2013-04-17-0400" name="WNVideoCanvasDEFAULTdivWNVideoCanvas21208" id="WNVideoCanvasDEFAULTdivWNVideoCanvas21208" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" height="385" width="630">





</object>

WKRG News 5 (http://www.wkrg.com)


Bobby Wilson, who once served as a Sheriff's Deputy in Florida. Wilson writes, "Coming from someone who worked in Law Enforcement, I think they went too far. In order to search a residence law enforcement has to either have a warrant or responsible suspicion that something illegal is presently occurring in that particular residence. They were beyond just asking if the family was okay and accounted for, they forced some out of their homes in order to search them."

[aboutime]

If these people demanded warrants and/or refused to allow police in, then surely they have filed suits/claims. I will be more than happy to accept those sources.



Similar to a car search, unless the owner refuses the search, demands a warrant or refuses entry for some reason, they can search. The only thing they can do AFTER THE FACT, would be to suppress evidence at a court hearing for an illegal search. Since there is no court hearing here, and no evidence, they have nothing to fight. Their only fight now then would be to bring it to civil courts or have legislators perform an inquiry and make changes.


jimnyc: Let's put Rev to the ultimate test here. Rev. Show us the documented cases, and numbers of people in Boston, and Watertown who REFUSED to allow the police into their homes, and the number of civilians who have FILED LAWSUITS because they believed their RIGHTS were infringed, or damaged in any way.

REV. It's up to you. 4959

[jimnyc]

But Jim i don't understand you asking for lawsuit info, or you won't believe, does everyone file a lawsuits after their rights have been violated by the police or the state? no.
That does NOT mean that the law hasn't been Broken if no charges have been filed. People have been raped and not filed charges.

I agree. But wouldn't it make sense, that if this was such an open/shut case of being unlawful or unconstitutional, that SOMEONE would be filing suit or having representatives in government seeking answers/charges/changes? I'm actually HOPING someone files suit or similar, as I am extremely confident that the courts will find similarly to what I've been saying, but I/we won't know this unless someone does. If so many people were violated, and so many of them are willing to speak to news agencies about being violated, I think it stands to reason that they would file formal complaints and have the entire issue look into by the AG or similar.

[Marcus Aurelius]

The one guy on the CNN clip Clip said _not the guy with the kid-- They had guns pointed down on me and told me to leave my house i tried to ask what for can .. They just yelled at me to leave.
That's illegal search if they have ZERO evidence of trouble at that house.

But Jim i don't understand you asking for lawsuit info, or you won't believe, does everyone file a lawsuits after their rights have been violated by the police or the state? no.
That does NOT mean that the law hasn't been Broken if no charges have been filed. People have been raped and not filed charges.


A home search is not the same as a car search BTW.


Below Local Lawyer questioning Boston area searches
And Another Deputy Sheriff pointing out.. well basically saying the same things i've said.
http://www.wkrg.com/story/22058099/did-boston-police-go-too-far-during-search

WKRG News 5 (http://www.wkrg.com)


Bobby Wilson, who once served as a Sheriff's Deputy in Florida. Wilson writes, "Coming from someone who worked in Law Enforcement, I think they went too far. In order to search a residence law enforcement has to either have a warrant or responsible suspicion that something illegal is presently occurring in that particular residence. They were beyond just asking if the family was okay and accounted for, they forced some out of their homes in order to search them."

wow... a single, former deputy sheriff agrees with you...you must be right! :rolleyes:

As for the rest of that post, since you're obviously a lawyer, you should immediately fly to Boston and offer to represent this multitude of people that are upset in their multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the police, city and state. You're a shoe in to win that for them.

[jimnyc]

The nail-biting manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect on Apr. 19 led police from door to door in Watertown, Mass., looking for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (http://blogs.lawyers.com/tag/dzhokhar-tsarnaev). How were police able to search people’s homes without warrants?

No Warrant, but Still Need a Reason The Fourth Amendment (http://blogs.lawyers.com/tag/fourth-amendment/), of course, requires police to have warrants supported by “probable cause” to conduct searches. But exceptions allow police to make emergency searches without warrants – and sometimes even without probable cause.
The “exigent circumstances” doctrine allows police, on the spot, to search a place where they’d otherwise need a warrant, explains David Rossman (http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/rossman_d.html), a professor of criminal law at Boston University School of Law.
A recent example is represented by Kentucky v. King (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15616623500796839776&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), he says, the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court (http://blogs.lawyers.com/tag/supreme-court/) case in which police, chasing a suspect, knocked on a door and heard noises that led them to believe evidence was about to be destroyed. The Court overturned the Kentucky Supreme Court, holding that the exigent circumstances exception applies even when police conduct “causes” the circumstances – basically by chasing the suspects.
“If they have probable cause, they can search without a warrant when taking the time to get one either would result in the destruction of evidence or present a danger to someone,” Rossman observes.

Public Safety, No Probable CauseWhile some sources (http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindlawNews-TopStories+%28FindLaw+News+-+Top+Stories%29) have conflated the two ideas, saying the exigent circumstances doctrine allowed Boston and federal police to search homes in the Tsarnaev manhunt because of public safety concerns, Rossman says public safety is a separate exception to the Fourth Amendment.

“That was really the public safety exception, not so much the exigent circumstances exception,” says Rossman. “In the latter, they need probable cause. For the former, they don’t; they just have to have a reasonable belief that there is a potential danger to the occupants inside a dwelling.”
Certainly there was potential danger to the neighborhoods Tsarnaev was ranging through; he was thought to be armed and very dangerous, seeing as how he and his brother had allegedly just blown up the Boston Marathon and then shot and killed a campus police officer at MIT.
As for the probable cause necessary to search each home under exigent circumstances, that would have been more difficult to establish: Was there any reasonable evidence that Tsarnaev was inside any one particular home? Likely not, until the bloody tarp and boat were discovered.

‘I’m on, no, in a Boat!’ What if Tsarnaev had holed up in a home – or even the boat – and refused to come out for a longer period of time. Would the police have needed a warrant then?
“If he was an active shooter, or presented an imminent danger, then no,” Rossman says. “If he was just inside a dwelling and didn’t know the police were there to arrest him, then yes.”
While it was probably the furthest thing from their minds, the police could have legally busted others who let them into their homes in their sweep through Watertown – for totally unrelated crimes.
Rossman says the police would have been within their rights to arrest someone for, say, guns or drugs they found in the sweep, without a warrant. But the evidence would likely have had to have been in “plain view” – yet another Fourth Amendment rule.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/04/exigent-circumstances-and-public-safety-in-watertown/

[aboutime]

wow... a single, former deputy sheriff agrees with you...you must be right! :rolleyes:

As for the rest of that post, since you're obviously a lawyer, you should immediately fly to Boston and offer to represent this multitude of people that are upset in their multi-billion dollar lawsuit against the police, city and state. You're a shoe in to win that for them.


Marcus. We can make this as simple as possible for Rev. If only he provides the evidence to back up the claims about all of those RIGHTS being stepped on, or ignored in Boston, and Watertown.

Not a difficult challenge for anyone IF....they have proof to back up their claims.
Otherwise. That Miranda Warning about "RIGHT TO REMAIN SILENT" should be taken seriously.

[taft2012]

:tinfoil:

Already had it!

:tinfoil: Son of a gun, there it is! Thank you.

[taft2012]

The nail-biting manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombing suspect on Apr. 19 led police from door to door in Watertown, Mass., looking for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (http://blogs.lawyers.com/tag/dzhokhar-tsarnaev). How were police able to search people’s homes without warrants?

No Warrant, but Still Need a Reason

The Fourth Amendment (http://blogs.lawyers.com/tag/fourth-amendment/), of course, requires police to have warrants supported by “probable cause” to conduct searches. But exceptions allow police to make emergency searches without warrants – and sometimes even without probable cause.
The “exigent circumstances” doctrine allows police, on the spot, to search a place where they’d otherwise need a warrant, explains David Rossman (http://www.bu.edu/law/faculty/profiles/bios/full-time/rossman_d.html), a professor of criminal law at Boston University School of Law.
A recent example is represented by Kentucky v. King (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15616623500796839776&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), he says, the 2011 U.S. Supreme Court (http://blogs.lawyers.com/tag/supreme-court/) case in which police, chasing a suspect, knocked on a door and heard noises that led them to believe evidence was about to be destroyed. The Court overturned the Kentucky Supreme Court, holding that the exigent circumstances exception applies even when police conduct “causes” the circumstances – basically by chasing the suspects.
“If they have probable cause, they can search without a warrant when taking the time to get one either would result in the destruction of evidence or present a danger to someone,” Rossman observes.

Public Safety, No Probable Cause

While some sources (http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2013/04/can-police-search-door-to-door-without-warrants.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+FindlawNews-TopStories+%28FindLaw+News+-+Top+Stories%29) have conflated the two ideas, saying the exigent circumstances doctrine allowed Boston and federal police to search homes in the Tsarnaev manhunt because of public safety concerns, Rossman says public safety is a separate exception to the Fourth Amendment.

“That was really the public safety exception, not so much the exigent circumstances exception,” says Rossman. “In the latter, they need probable cause. For the former, they don’t; they just have to have a reasonable belief that there is a potential danger to the occupants inside a dwelling.”
Certainly there was potential danger to the neighborhoods Tsarnaev was ranging through; he was thought to be armed and very dangerous, seeing as how he and his brother had allegedly just blown up the Boston Marathon and then shot and killed a campus police officer at MIT.
As for the probable cause necessary to search each home under exigent circumstances, that would have been more difficult to establish: Was there any reasonable evidence that Tsarnaev was inside any one particular home? Likely not, until the bloody tarp and boat were discovered.

‘I’m on, no, in a Boat!’

What if Tsarnaev had holed up in a home – or even the boat – and refused to come out for a longer period of time. Would the police have needed a warrant then?
“If he was an active shooter, or presented an imminent danger, then no,” Rossman says. “If he was just inside a dwelling and didn’t know the police were there to arrest him, then yes.”
While it was probably the furthest thing from their minds, the police could have legally busted others who let them into their homes in their sweep through Watertown – for totally unrelated crimes.
Rossman says the police would have been within their rights to arrest someone for, say, guns or drugs they found in the sweep, without a warrant. But the evidence would likely have had to have been in “plain view” – yet another Fourth Amendment rule.

http://blogs.lawyers.com/2013/04/exigent-circumstances-and-public-safety-in-watertown/

I've made most of these points already, including "plain view". I doubt Rev will be swayed. He values his weed too highly (ha! a pun).

[tailfins]

As soon as I see the name Alex Jones I don't bother reading. You get more credibility from a "reality" show. Welcome to Myrtle Manor.