Government response to Boston Marathon bombs; warrantless searches & soldiers

[in625shooter]

How true. Now, could you refresh my memory (I'm getting old), was it Sadaam's ICBM arsenal or the massive Iraqi navy that was perceived as the most imminent threat to our existence at the time

Not defending it one way or the other, just explaining, Hussain did use chemicals at one time against his own folks as most know. Many believe he sent them to Syria and the the US took many out in No fly zone missions throughout the 1990's (we droped bombs every other day there from 1991 until before Iraqi Freedom). Thats her nor there but one thing many don't take into consideration is Hussain had all his resources and key palyers (doctors and scientists) to reconstitute his chemical weapons arsonal in a matter of months if we were to pull out or not go through with the invasion.

Was it right or wrong? Who knows!

 

[Lex Concord]

Not defending it one way or the other, just explaining, Hussain did use chemicals at one time against his own folks as most know. Many believe he sent them to Syria and the the US took many out in No fly zone missions throughout the 1990's (we droped bombs every other day there from 1991 until before Iraqi Freedom). Thats her nor there but one thing many don't take into consideration is Hussain had all his resources and key palyers (doctors and scientists) to reconstitute his chemical weapons arsonal in a matter of months if we were to pull out or not go through with the invasion.

Was it right or wrong? Who knows!

I'm just trying to get a definition of the alleged existential threat. I don't expect one because there wasn't one. Not from Sadaam or Iraq anyway, unless somebody has super-secret squirrel clearance on info not made available to the public.

 

[Lex Concord]

Secondly, people who are employed by our local, state and federal government are no more a servant than you are to your employer.
If you can't fathom that, reread the above paragraph.
This is 2013, not 1650

So are you saying the whole "public service" and "public servant" memes are a sham?

 

[jbombelli]

Well, when they returned with a warrant it must have been. We all have an opinion and I am just stating what I saw. No more or less than that. I am no lawyer and only have personal experiences to draw from.
I am not trying to start a fight but you seem to know so there it is.
Leo showed when there was a noise complaint. Yes there was noise. Yes we had stopped. Leo walked into friends garage, was asked to step outside the garage and said he was in and wanted to look around. Friend stepped in front of him again asking him to step outside and talk there LEO saw 2 handguns on the bench. Got excited. They were ours and we stated as much. Friend again told LEO to leave his garage and talk outside. LEO became very agitated and again referred to the handguns. It escalated from there into a full blown argument. LEO eventually left but was back shortly with help. I was at home by then (just down the street) and was wittiness to all the stupidity of the event. I walked back down and was patted down for weapons and none were found (Duh) but did have LTCH. The search turned up nothing. LEO left and all was once again calm.
It was ridiculous from the start. All that had to be said was keep it down. We had already put away the toys.
I guess they were wrong huh..........

No one is right all the time. Had we not been running his race car for an extended period LEO would not have came. Neighbors kid was sick and we were not aware.All was quite when he arrived.

So what was listed on the warrant? What were they searching for?

 

[churchmouse]

So what was listed on the warrant? What were they searching for?

Did I not say it was not my house. I did not see the warrant. I was not privy to that info. After being patted down and a brief tutorial on how to speak with LEO I left
Friend said little about it. He did mention guns and suspicion of drugs.
As stated, They found zipp. Nothing to find.

 

[jbombelli]

Did I not say it was not my house. I did not see the warrant. I was not privy to that info. After being patted down and a brief tutorial on how to speak with LEO I left
Friend said little about it. He did mention guns and suspicion of drugs.
As stated, They found zipp. Nothing to find.

First, not being your house doesn't necessarily mean you didn't know or find out later what was being searched for. Second, you didn't see a warrant, so for all you actually know there wasn't really a warrant.

Perhaps the police came back and got a signed consent form (and how they may have gotten that matters).

Perhaps they swore out a false affidavit.

Perhaps you guys left your roaches out in plain sight.

This is why I asked for an actual case. You don't know what happened per your own words. You weren't privy to that information, so what you're really doing here is filling in the blanks to fit your "the police can do whatever they want" point of view.

The bottom line is refusing consent to a search, by itself, cannot be considered as supporting a determination of Probable Cause (United States v. Robinson, 6 M.J. 109, 111 (C.M.A. 1979)), or even Reasonable Suspicion (United States v. Williams, No. 00-30074, 2001 WL 337857, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2001)).

 

[KG1]

First, not being your house doesn't necessarily mean you didn't know or find out later what was being searched for. Second, you didn't see a warrant, so for all you actually know there wasn't really a warrant.

Perhaps the police came back and got a signed consent form (and how they may have gotten that matters).

Perhaps they swore out a false affidavit.

Perhaps you guys left your roaches out in plain sight.

This is why I asked for an actual case. You don't know what happened per your own words. You weren't privy to that information, so what you're really doing here is filling in the blanks to fit your "the police can do whatever they want" point of view.

The bottom line is refusing consent to a search, by itself, cannot be considered as supporting a determination of Probable Cause (United States v. Robinson, 6 M.J. 109, 111 (C.M.A. 1979)), or even Reasonable Suspicion (United States v. Williams, No. 00-30074, 2001 WL 337857, at *1 (9th Cir. Apr. 4, 2001)).

It looks to me like he's saying to just give in and give consent from the get go because if they really wanna get in and search they will go get a warrant and be back. (btw...I don't agree with the just give in and consent plan.)

 

[IndyBeerman]

Please un-fix what I wrote and think harder about it. I stand by every word. "Public servant" is not a pejorative. Every government employee is supposed to be a public servant. In theory, they serve the public's interest, are overseen by the public, paid by the public, and answerable to the public. All of them, from the local dog-catcher to the president. If any public servant doesn't embrace his role as a public servant, he doesn't deserve to be a public servant anymore.

You know there's a big difference between public servant as above, and what you have here...

The public has the right to make the same decisions regarding their servants

I take servant as a right of ownership, to serve at my beckon call, I would say there are a lot of people who share the same view as I do.

I want you to go into one of your local government offices and spout off that they are your servant and see how far that gets you.

 

[jbombelli]

It looks to me like he's saying to just give in and give consent from the get go because if they really wanna get in and search they will go get a warrant and be back. (btw...I don't agree with the just give in and consent plan.)

That seems to be exactly what he's saying. All I'm saying is they have to have PC for a search to get a warrant, and refusal of consent does not provide that PC. The Supreme Court has said this in so many words. Or I suppose they can lie under oath when they swear out the affidavit and invent their PC, and hope they don't get caught in their lie, and although that does happen I don't think it's a regular occurrence.

 

[rambone]

You know there's a big difference between public servant as above, and what you have here...

I take servant as a right of ownership, to serve at my beckon call, I would say there are a lot of people who share the same view as I do.

This should clarify your misunderstanding. Let me google that for you

 

[fireblade]

Martial Law

I keep seeing some here in this thread use the term Martial Law or implying it. Which is not true this wasn't even close to a martial law action some confuse police state and Martial Law they are to very diffent forms of authority. First Marial law is the imposition of military rule by military authorities to enforce their rule over the public.Military personnel replace civil authorities the highest-ranking military officer of that operation would take over, or be installed, as the military Governor.In a nutt shell Martial law is the suspension of civil authority and the imposition of military authority. This did not happen in the boston area. Now martial law can not be used in any state unless the governor of that state request it. only exception is a severe or extreme national emergency the president can inact the country(all state's) under martial law.



Police state


Now a the term a police state is more at a state level or city level and is complete control and authority by the use of police forces ,special state units, state's homeland security, under state emergency action regulations etc. with the help of state and federal agencys. They can inact curfews that gives restriction on people's movements and can requiring them to remain indoors . The state can exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and on their freedom to express or communicate political or other views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement of the population of its state under a police state. History has shown most police state exist under a militarization of police force. Here in this country a governor has a state police and a military force under there command which would be that state National Guard units. The governor can activate and deploy these troops in their state with or without armed weapons for security control to assist the local or state police. Those units will have detention ability but not the ability to arrest that still falls under the police who are the final civil authority. Understand these armed military units assisting police can use lethal force and fire there weapons if they feel there lifes in danger or protecting another who life in danger or have standing order to protect important building with lethal force. So if some want to question the heavy use of state or police authority use in the boston area use the correct terms. This wasn't even close to Martial Law event....

 

[churchmouse]

It looks to me like he's saying to just give in and give consent from the get go because if they really wanna get in and search they will go get a warrant and be back. (btw...I don't agree with the just give in and consent plan.)

That is exactly my point.

The original confrontation was near becoming physical if LEO did not just step out of the garage and conduct himself in a civil manor. After he saw our side arms on the bench it escalated from there. No roaches. Those days are long gone and just the implication is a bit silly. LEO stated he smelled something. What he smelled was 110 octane racing gas and a new motor heat sinking.
I did not see warrant as I did not really need to. Yes, we spoke of it at length. It was a witch hunt by a butt hurt LEO.
I give out no info in open forum except personal knowledge or opinion for good reason. I would not give info on anyone for those reasons.

My original point was if you are in the situation the good folks of Boston found themselves in it would be prudent to allow search. If you did not they would get in one way or another.
1st...is the suspect in the house holding a hostage and you are scared for your life....good reason

2nd...are you a militant whack job with something to hide....good reason for them.

That was the point I was making. Having seen this work personally I do see it happening.

Roach's......really

Nuff said. Back to our original thread.

 

[thompal]

As for Boston, it's a difficult line to walk...balance personal liberty with public safety. We are entering unfamiliar territory with terror acts like Boston. I cannot fathom being the decision maker in an event like this.

As we enter the "we must catch terrorists at all costs" vs. "we must preserve individual liberties at all costs" era. Unstoppable force vs. immoveable object.

 

[jedi]

Not sure if this video ya have seen yet or not.
http://youtu.be/2LrbsUVSVl8

 

[thompal]

Not sure if this video ya have seen yet or not.
http://youtu.be/2LrbsUVSVl8

What's the problem?? Obviously the residents were asked for permission for the search.

 

[Destro]

Not sure if this video ya have seen yet or not.
http://youtu.be/2LrbsUVSVl8

so you talked to the homeowner and are sure there was no warrant? or are you just posting that in a context that would make a casual reader believe there was no warrant or probable cause?

 

[Trigger Time]

Why don't we write these homeowners and ask? We know their addresses. The media is sure willing to pick out the gems that fill their agendas so why don't we send out a mass mailer survey and see what the real truth is?
The average person doesn't even know they have the right to refuse a search of their car even or person. Nor do they know they have the right to refuse to answer any questions from law enforcement. Why don't they teach our kids about their rights in the governemt funded schools they go to? Oh I think I just answered my own question.

 

[thompal]

so you talked to the homeowner and are sure there was no warrant? or are you just posting that in a context that would make a casual reader believe there was no warrant or probable cause?

I think you're REALLY stretching there. Unless you consider "there's a bad guy who may still be in the city" to be probable cause.

 

[thompal]

Why don't we write these homeowners and ask? We know their addresses. The media is sure willing to pick out the gems that fill their agendas so why don't we send out a mass mailer survey and see what the real truth is?
The average person doesn't even know they have the right to refuse a search of their car even or person. Nor do they know they have the right to refuse to answer any questions from law enforcement. Why don't they teach our kids about their rights in the governemt funded schools they go to? Oh I think I just answered my own question.

I think it goes beyond that a bit. Would a "reasonable person" realize that if a dozen armed police pounded on your door, aimed their guns at you, and said "come out with your hands up" that there was a realistic possibility to say "no thank you"?

 

[Trigger Time]

I think it goes beyond that a bit. Would a "reasonable person" realize that if a dozen armed police pounded on your door, aimed their guns at you, and said "come out with your hands up" that there was a realistic possibility to say "no thank you"?

I guess I'm not reasonable. I guess growing up wit Leo in the family I was more aware than others. A lot of the tactics like you mention are just bully tactics. Eventually as the police state gets more violent against citizens they will start reacting back in mass and who knows what will happen then.