America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

I hate to inform you but that rule is for Alabama and Arkansas only...

I would like to see that tried in court.

Secondly, in a manhunt that extensive and exhaustive, they probably wouldn't even arrest the guy who had the coke, because they'd have other pressing issues to attend to - like catching the bomber.

Ie if the search itself is legal, anything in plain view (where the cops would look for a human in this case) is fair game for evidence even if unrelated to the reason for the search.

I suspect most searches were as voluntary as can be at gunpoint or blessed as exigent circumstances. If the search is legal the brick of coke on the coffee table sends you to jail if they choose to do so.

Easy peasy.

I've seen enough video of people being forced to leave their homes at gunpoint, searched and treated as criminals to find the whole thing bothersome. It is interesting to me to see certain folks ok with the whole thing.

I'd like someone to test the whole exigent circumstances peice in this instance. It seems like a stretch but I'm likely wrong. The popo has more power than we know and we have less rights than we think.

Don't look now but there is a boogie man in your neighborhood. Open up.

A couple of things that are getting confused here. First, when you get a search warrant, the authorities have to provide compelling evidence for the judge to sign off. That evidence has to be related to a crime...a specific crime. That crime has to have a perpetrator.

Secondly, there is a matter of a home being a place where there is an expectation of privacy. If you are not home, and the place barge in without a search warrant looking for a bombing suspect, any evidence of a crime not related to the person they are tracking down is going to get thrown out of court. Its fruit of the poisoned tree. It is basically along the same lines as a person who is not a law enforcement officer, but working with law enforcement, searching your home for them. They are an agent of law enforcement - the evidence will get tossed.

Secondly, if you are home and the police want to search your house, you can deny them access. They may barge in anyways looking for the bombing suspect. The minute that happens, it is as if you weren't home, and the police executed a search without a warrant.

If they claim it was because they suspected a fugitive was in your house, they then have to somehow have to link you to that crime in order for the evidence they found to be admissable. Again, it'll get thrown out.

The only time you'd get pinched would be if you were home, and allowed the police to search your house by leaving all the evidence in plain sight. Even then, I'd think that it would be hard for the police to make a case based on the evidence, because a judge would most likely throw the evidence out.

It's not to say that the police might not be knocking on your door the next day, or putting you under surviellence. But that's not the same as charging you with a crime.

Even with that, I think a judge would be hard-pressed to sign a search warrant give that the compelling evidence for getting the warrant in the first place came from an observation made during a manhunt. This is Boston we're talking about: one of the most liberal cities in one of the most liberal states in the US.

Zee Germans followed zee law.

I've read your post twice and think you may have some sort of mental capacity issues.
What does your first statement mean?
"If everybody knows that coming onto your property, or into your house uninvited, and will get a shotgun sandwich, that should be the fault of the person crashing down the door."

My comment had nothing to do with having a right to protect your own home.

And your overtly macho response tells me that you're likely compensating for some short coming that we need not get into right now.

Paranoia??? As if what OUR eyes saw didn't happen? Glad your ok with what went down in Boston, I expect in your household it's the wife that protects the home.

So you're saying the owner of that boat hid the terrorist in it? Why was he not charged. Where is your outrage?!

I'm not outraged. This happened in your city. It can never happen to my city or to me.

I'm sorry that reading comprehension eludes you.
Your outrage is misplaced. You are more angry at me for accepting what went down, then you are at the terrorist actions that took place.
If I'm mistaken, please pardon me, and show me where you posted about the terrorist with equal vitriol.
When someone lurks behind a subject and then only speaks up when their perceived fear of a police state makes it onto youtube, then I can say with near certainty that the person is indeed paranoid.

But I think this is a central part of our argument. By this point, it's too late.

Governments never willingly limit their power. The citizens must make themselves heard when they feel government is getting too close to the limits of its power. If you make yourself heard after government is well beyond its reach, it's too late.

Also, what separates these guys from any other hardcore criminals like bank robbers or drug lords? How do you define terrorist? What about all these gang bangers in Chicago? They've killed way more than in Boston. We lost more on the streets of Chicago than over in Iraq and Afghanistan last year. Not just gang bangers have died - little children and even babies. Where is your outrage? Should we put Chicago and Detroit on lockdown to round them all up? The streets would be safer, but does that make it legal?

I post more classless stuff on here everyday..

Your right I'm more angry at you than the "terrorist" for he's nothing more than a punk with a bomb who has hatred in his heart for Westerners ( Americans ) and our way of life. You on the other hand are willing to GIVE away all our precious rights for a little perceived safety. I don't have to show you **** about my vitriol, it's automatic....of course!!
Lurk behind a subject? And it's not perceived fear of a police state....I see it happening with my own eyes. And anyone who refuses to defend themselves is a **** ( see what I did there...you think I'm paranoid, I think yer a Nancy Boy)

they removed people from their homes at gun point and frisked them (just in case the bomber was hiding in their pockets)

And the sheep will say Dr Paul is crazy for sayingthe this, not seeing the bigger picture themselves.

Everyone is an austerity protester/domestic terrorist suspect. Look up so a UAV can take your picture.

I heard tailgator asked to be frisked multiple times, once after cutting his front pockets out.

I heard one of the bombers is still hiding in TGs undies

And there's the problem, porche. Watch the video. It doesn't look like they asked. Folks forced out of their homes at gun point. Sad that so few Americans seem to have a problem with this.

I agree. This is exactly the problem. And they can always shoot the dog to promote a conflict (Ruby Ridge).

she prolly had real saggy boobs and all,,,

I would have said no then did what they said with the intentions of testing things in court later. Then I would never follow through out of lazyness and cheapness.

Actually... this could turn into some really interesting lawsuits.

Lets say someone like TW is smart enough to say "No"... and then is videotaped being dragged out by the cops...

Well... I'd assume that the chronic neck pain which now makes it impossible for them to work the rest of their life will be paid for by the Boston PD, right?

Hey now.
Potts had an argument with a Judge about servers once and potts proved the judge doesn't know anything about servers... that demonstrates conclusively that the whole JD degree is a waste of time and they're all stupid. Clearly potts is the end all and be all of legal knowledge.

did you server?