Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT

[Larry Gude]

thats one option, but you still haven't explained how the police were suposed to know you weren't harboring him as part of the terrorist group.

They can do whatever they like, obviously, or they wouldn't have done it.

So, now, that a new precedent, and expectation, and, frankly, subservience, has been set, will we see this sort of response more? Or less?

Why, a child is missing and in danger! This demands maximum effort!

There is a wife (or husband?) beater on the loose! Call out the guard!

Al queda wins again. For the price of a pressure cooker and a couple expendables.

Anyone wanna doubt there won't be a whole new slew of legislation proposing expansion of police powers so that, next time, the whole thing is formalized and a whole new layer of bureaucracy can grow and thrive?

Land of the free! Home of the GET THE #### OUT, NOW!


Take a bow, America. Take a bow! Bow, I said!

 

[Larry Gude]

I believe his take is that it doesn't matter whether they believe him or not; they should go away if the homeowner or whoever answers the door tells them to.

I believe your take is, it doesn't matter what the cops do. It just doesn't matter. It's good and proper and justified.

They consented! No they didn't.

It was voluntary! No, it wasn't.

The ends justify the means! Do they? Really?

 

[Midnightrider]

I believe your take is, it doesn't matter what the cops do. It just doesn't matter. It's good and proper and justified.

They consented! No they didn't.

It was voluntary! No, it wasn't.

The ends justify the means! Do they? Really?

what statements from residents of watertown indicate that they didn't consent?

 

[GURPS]

And there it is....our forum's version of Godwin's Law.

If anyone questions the police, or their actions, they must be a cop hater.

but Chris, you are not being a good little subject ....

do you remember the 'Police Searches' in the Fifth Element ...

place your hands on the wall in the yellow circles ...

 

[DipStick]

How do the cops know that you are not harboring him? How do the cops know that he isn't just around the corner holding a gun to your kid's head?

Unreasonable would be your desire for them not to persue a known armed and dangerous murderer.

I heard numerous times that they were concerned he could be holding someone at gunpoint in their own home in Watertown.

 

[Larry Gude]

what statements from residents of watertown indicate that they didn't consent?

I look forward to your comments after you've had a chance to see the vids.

 

[DipStick]

If
They
Show
UP
At
MY
House
AND
I come to the door, armed and ready and telling them "Boys, my home is secure"
They
SHould
Then
Say
"Thanks for helping! Wish more people were like you!"
And
go
to
the
next
search

Is
There
Any
Evidence
That
This
Actually
Happened?

 

[vraiblonde]

They can do whatever they like, obviously, or they wouldn't have done it.

So, now, that a new precedent, and expectation, and, frankly, subservience, has been set, will we see this sort of response more? Or less?

Why, a child is missing and in danger! This demands maximum effort!

There is a wife (or husband?) beater on the loose! Call out the guard!

Al queda wins again. For the price of a pressure cooker and a couple expendables.

Anyone wanna doubt there won't be a whole new slew of legislation proposing expansion of police powers so that, next time, the whole thing is formalized and a whole new layer of bureaucracy can grow and thrive?

Land of the free! Home of the GET THE #### OUT, NOW!


Take a bow, America. Take a bow! Bow, I said!

Wow.

 

[Midnightrider]

I look forward to your comments after you've had a chance to see the vids.

i'll look at them, AND ill look forward to you or anyone else coming up with an example of a person involved who claims they didn't give consent or who feels their rights were violated.

 

[Larry Gude]

Wow.

Anyone wanna doubt there won't be a whole new slew of legislation proposing expansion of police powers so that, next time, the whole thing is formalized and a whole new layer of bureaucracy can grow and thrive?

So, what do I get when, excuse me, IF this happens?

Another 'wow'?

 

[Larry Gude]

i'll look at them, AND ill look forward to you or anyone else coming up with an example of a person involved who claims they didn't give consent or who feels their rights were violated.

Now, I know, fact certain, you can't see them from work.

 

[DipStick]

Unreasonable was the way the LAPD conducted their manhunt for Christopher Dorner - opening fire on trucks that looked like his for no real reason.

But again, is there any evidence that people in Watertown did not consent to searches?

 

[Midnightrider]

So, what do I get when, excuse me, IF this happens?

Another 'wow'?

i dont know, what do we get when it doesn't

 

[DipStick]

And I won't pull up a YouTube video - I've already blown through half my data for the month on my aircard..... so summarize it.

 

[PsyOps]

House-By-House Search By SWAT Team

St. Petersburg Times - Google News Archive Search

Oregon Town Fearful as Manhunt for Alleged Cop Shooter Continues - ABC News

I'm not seeing where any of these were anywhere near the scale of Watertown. I'm also not seeing where these towns were in lockdown. And we don't have any evidence that cops forced people out of their homes at gunpoint with their hands in the air.

Next!

 

[Larry Gude]

i dont know, what do we get when it doesn't

Is it not reasonable to think otherwise. With ZERO doubt, both state and feds will be looking at the response, identify issues, both legal, and procedural, and seeking to formalize procedures and address legalities.

This WILL happen and we can be as certain as that as we can of the sun coming up tomorrow.

So, you can 'get' whatever you like because no one will be collecting.

 

[GURPS]

But again, is there any evidence that people in Watertown did not consent to searches?

are you going to tell 10-12 heavily armed Virginia State Troopers No

the very presence on your door step is coercive ...



don't lib's argue all the time, they feel uncomfortable - nervous - paranoid when someone is around them with a firearm ..

.. you Andrew are going to be 'hey guys whats happening' when 12 swat team members are on your door step with guns drawn / pointed in your direction ....

 

[Larry Gude]

Just to clarify; if I open the door, the cops point guns at me, pull me out of the house, make me raise my arms, help me do it, then tell me to get out, move away from my house, is that considered 'consent' by any of you police state types?

I mean, if that is, it changes my whole argument. I've been assuming you don't think that is consent.

 

[Midnightrider]

Just to clarify; if I open the door, the cops point guns at me, pull me out of the house, make me raise my arms, help me do it, then tell me to get out, move away from my house, is that considered 'consent' by any of you police state types?

I mean, if that is, it changes my whole argument. I've been assuming you don't think that is consent.

I beleive it is consent unless one of the persons says "No you dont have my permission to seach my house" OR they say they didn't consent after the fact.

 

[Ken King]

There are judicially recognized exceptions to many if not all of the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. I mean are you okay with the exception to the 1st Amendment where you can't shout "fire" in a crowded theater. How about the exception to the 2nd Amendment that is supposed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally deranged. So, if those are agreeable with you, then why not an exception to the 4th Amendment and warrantless searches?

To date, the judicially recognized exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement is the exigent circumstances exception. That exception is "exigent circumstances occur when a reasonable officer could believe that to delay acting to obtain a warrant would, in all likelihood, permanently frustrate an important police objective, such as to prevent the destruction of evidence relating to criminal activity or to secure an arrest before a suspect can commit further serious harm.”

Isn't that what was going on in this instance, the prevention of further serious harm. For those that think this violates the 4th Amendment, can you offer up a "what should have been done" process, keep in mind the circumstances of this event and the immediacy for action?