jimbud
  • jimbud
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago
Ripped off from Wade, BTW.


Read the below and then check out this video.  This was done over a 20 block area of Boston, allegedly. The video really brings it home.

WATERTOWN, MA -- On Friday, April 19, 2013, during a manhunt for a bombing suspect, police and federal agents spent the day storming people's homes and performing illegal searches. While it was unclear initially if the home searches were voluntary, it is now crystal clear that they were absolutely NOT voluntary. Police were filmed ripping people from their homes at gunpoint, marching the residents out with their hands raised in submission, and then storming the homes to perform their illegal searches.
This was part of a larger operation that involved total lockdown of the suburban neighbor to Boston. Roads were barricaded and vehicle traffic was prohibited. A No-Fly Zone was declared over the town. People were "ordered" to stay indoors. Businesses were told not to open. National Guard soldiers helped with the lockdown, and were photographed checking IDs of pedestrians on the streets. All the while, police were performing these disgusting house-to-house searches.
View All Posts by User
nitro6526
13 years ago
So I am to assume.that you do or did not agree with that? A suspected terrorist is loose after throwing IED's out of the window of a vehicle and fled on foot to that area. Unless someone had someone or something to hide why would they care?

Yeah yeah I know the 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. A KNOWN TERRORIST was in the area. I kinda think that warrants a house to house search. I could be wrong, but I doubt any reasonable person with nothing to hide would care if their house was searched.
View All Posts by User
jimbud
  • jimbud
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

So I am to assume.that you do or did not agree with that? A suspected terrorist is loose after throwing IED's out of the window of a vehicle and fled on foot to that area. Unless someone had someone or something to hide why would they care?

Yeah yeah I know the 4th amendment protects against illegal search and seizure. A KNOWN TERRORIST was in the area. I kinda think that warrants a house to house search. I could be wrong, but I doubt any reasonable person with nothing to hide would care if their house was searched.

nitro6526 wrote:


Disagree with it. Strongly. You start trading away liberties and you are in trouble. There had been no declaration of marshal law. The citizens had a right to decline a search, let alone an invasion like that. We aren't that far away from this kind of state when people start making the argument "why would you mind if you aren't hiding anything." And lots of good dogs have been shot barking at this kind of stuff. Liberty has limits and, admittedly, it's limitations....
View All Posts by User
dubleuhb
13 years ago
Did you watch the video ? There was nothing voluntary about it. Cops yelling when they put their hands down! No way they should be forced out of there house like perps.
Am I to assume you would welcome this type of search for whatever reason as long as they gave you one ?

That video should worry anyone that cherishes their rights.

What do you think happened to the K-9 units ? Seems they could have found this guy with the help of dogs.
View All Posts by User
paulkeck
13 years ago
Give up 1 amendment and you basically give them all up. Ridiculous is what it is
View All Posts by User
dubleuhb
13 years ago
Jimbud, your inbox is full. To answer your question, no it was in response to #2
View All Posts by User
jimbud
  • jimbud
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago

Jimbud, your inbox is full. To answer your question, no it was in response to #2

dubleuhb wrote:


Cleaned out. Sorry.
View All Posts by User
dpnewell
13 years ago
Wow, I'm sure glad there are some others that are upset with this too.

Nitro, not to pick on you dude, but come on now. This was illegal, no matter what the reason. How long before they decide to do random illegal searches of folks homes? Maybe we can start performing house to house searches for guns or drugs. It's for the public good, and if you have nothing to hide, why would you object, right?

We're not Japan, where police show up at your home twice a year to do a "survey". But then again, maybe I shouldn't be giving this administration any ideas.
View All Posts by User
nitro6526
13 years ago
I will respectfully agree to disagree. I may see it differently. If a person with terrorist intentions was in my neighborhood and the police wanted to search it, by all means go ahead. I don't care.
My opinion is that a guy running around blowing 8 year old kids warrants extenuating circumstances. He and his brother attempted to shoot and blow up police. That alone would make them nervous entering homes/areas/basements etc.
It was/is not.a matter of giving up liberties in my mind, but extraordinary circumstances that lead to his being captured. Of these people that feel their liberties were "violated", you think they will trade places with the 3 that died or more than 180 injured? Or how about just the 1 campus security that died?

I
View All Posts by User
dpnewell
13 years ago
Nitro,
The Constitution guarantees me the right to be secure in my home against illegal searches. Because I’m not willing to give up that right, I’m suppose to trade places with the murdered and injured? How is that argument even the least bit logical?
View All Posts by User
paulkeck
13 years ago

I will respectfully agree to disagree. I may see it differently. If a person with terrorist intentions was in my neighborhood and the police wanted to search it, by all means go ahead. I don't care.
My opinion is that a guy running around blowing 8 year old kids warrants extenuating circumstances. He and his brother attempted to shoot and blow up police. That alone would make them nervous entering homes/areas/basements etc.
It was/is not.a matter of giving up liberties in my mind, but extraordinary circumstances that lead to his being captured. Of these people that feel their liberties were "violated", you think they will trade places with the 3 that died or more than 180 injured? Or how about just the 1 campus security that died?

I

nitro6526 wrote:


So basicly your saying it is ok to capture a law breaker by breaking the law. I agree he is a terrorist but next time who knows why they will break the law you bend rules for even a seemingly good reason it gets easier and easier to keep doing it!!
View All Posts by User
nitro6526
13 years ago
I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.
View All Posts by User
dubleuhb
13 years ago
No way do they have the right Nitro to treat those people like that. That is just one house that was videotaped. I can only imagine if someone was armed to protect themselves and the cops came in like that and seen a weapon.

I cannot for any reason see why they needed to go about it this way.
View All Posts by User
teedubbya
13 years ago
I'm terribly uncomfortable with this. Do you mean to tell me if the government thinks a bad guy is in my area they can for wanly search my home at gunpoint? How is this different than what the Red coats did that sparked our desire for rights?

Bad ju ju.
View All Posts by User
dubleuhb
13 years ago

I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.

nitro6526 wrote:


Not sure they had the option. Hands on your head ? are you kidding me ?
View All Posts by User
dpnewell
13 years ago
Keep in mind folks, that these illegal home searches did not locate the fugitive. A home owner, breaking police orders to stay in his home, went outside to check his boat, and found the fugitive. The terrorist was found, only because a home owner refused to obey the illegal "house arrest"order. Of course the house arrest order was made palatable to the masses by calling it "shelter in place".
View All Posts by User
paulkeck
13 years ago

I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.

nitro6526 wrote:


I agree and I would also but the point I think everyone is trying to make is it should be our right not be pulled out by gun point
View All Posts by User
jimbud
  • jimbud
  • Herf-A-Holic Topic Starter
13 years ago
"shelter in place" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Absent a declaration of marshal law there is no such command. But it is now tripping off everyone's tongue like we use it everyday.
View All Posts by User
dpnewell
13 years ago

I was stating how I personally felt about it. IF I lived in the 20 block area, and the police wanted to come in and secure my house, I would not care. I will step outside and let them search to their hearts content. Then my time with them is done.

nitro6526 wrote:



That's perfectly fine. If there is a killer loose, and you want to give up your rights, and allow police to search your home without a warrant, you are entitled to do so. Problem I see here, is that folks unwilling to give up their rights, where illegally forced to do so at gun point.
View All Posts by User
dpnewell
13 years ago

"shelter in place" is the dumbest thing I have ever heard. Absent a declaration of marshal law there is no such command. But it is now tripping off everyone's tongue like we use it everyday.

jimbud wrote:



BTW, it's MARTIAL Law. Marshal law is a comic book. Yes, I know, I'm an arse, lol.
View All Posts by User
Users browsing this topic
Mobile! Terms | Privacy | Contact Us | Help | © 1998-2026, CigarBid.com