Two Explosions at Boston Marathon Finish Line

[GbrilliantQ]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Seriously, this is the reason why police work should be left to police...... Lets stay off of politics or the thread will be shut down and any further conversation on the topic.

Thank you.

Sent from my Transformer

[right to travel]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Seriously, this is the reason why police work should be left to police...... Lets stay off of politics or the thread will be shut down and any further conversation on the topic.

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

and a serious brush up on criminal law is needed for many....

please elaborate

[Milk 1027]

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

[right to travel]

I dont think anyone was confused on anything that is stated there. there were however many assumptions of how the searches of random peoples houses were conducted. no one here knows whether they violate any rights but from what we can see from pictures and videos posted on the net it appears they did.

And for those think that its ok for law enforcement to come in to look for whatever it is they want because its for your "safety" is the wrong mentality. IT'S NOT OK! You may have nothing to hide but, you don't have anything they need to see!

[Renegade]

Let's try to follow the rules please. The case is still going on and would like to see where it goes. Thank you.

[right to travel]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

I use this site alot to do reasearch when i feel in the legal learning mood.

[Milk 1027]

Originally Posted by right to travel

I dont think anyone was confused on anything that is stated there. there were however many assumptions of how the searches of random peoples houses were conducted. no one here knows whether they violate any rights but from what we can see from pictures and videos posted on the net it appears they did.

And for those think that its ok for law enforcement to come in to look for whatever it is they want because its for your "safety" is the wrong mentality. IT'S NOT OK! You may have nothing to hide but, you don't have anything they need to see!

Originally Posted by right to travel

I use this site alot to do reasearch when i feel in the legal learning mood.

Well then, you should know that one of the warrant exclusions applied to this situation. They weren't looking "for whatever it is they want", they were looking for a specific person which they knew was in the area and was an immediate threat to the public safety.


All I'm saying is, let the experts do their job. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure their legal counsel know exactly what they're doing as well.

[trewyn15]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Well then, you should know that one of the warrant exclusions applied to this situation. They weren't looking "for whatever it is they want", they were looking for a specific person which they knew was in the area and was an immediate threat to the public safety.


All I'm saying is, let the experts do their job. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure their legal counsel know exactly what they're doing as well.

[14pilot]

Fact Check:

The PD did check with the AG's Office before they started these house to house searches and were cleared to do them.

Even the ACLU has gone on record saying that no Civil Rights were violated.

Yes, this was extreme, but it was still legal.

[TAG UR IT]

^^There ya go.

And...

The prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures particularly affects the work of law enforcement personnel by restricting the actions that they may take in performing a criminal investigation; however, the ban also disallows unreasonable searches and seizures in the civil litigation context. Law enforcement may only conduct a search if individualized suspicion motivates the search. The Fourth Amendment prohibits generalized searches, unless extraordinary circumstances place the general public in danger.

I'd say a terrorist running around town throwing bombs at police officers, blowing people up, killing a police officer in cold blood while he sat in his police cruiser, car jacking a person to make a getaway, running over his handcuffed brother, shooting at police....should I stop there? I mean, is it just me, or would anyone else consider this nut an immediate danger??? This isn't rocket science folks...

[Aubrey64]

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

^^There ya go.

And...



I'd say a terrorist running around town throwing bombs at police officers, blowing people up, killing a police officer in cold blood while he sat in his police cruiser, car jacking a person to make a getaway, running over his handcuffed brother, shooting at police....should I stop there? I mean, is it just me, or would anyone else consider this nut an immediate danger??? This isn't rocket science folks...

[right to travel]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Well then, you should know that one of the warrant exclusions applied to this situation. They weren't looking "for whatever it is they want", they were looking for a specific person which they knew was in the area and was an immediate threat to the public safety.


All I'm saying is, let the experts do their job. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure their legal counsel know exactly what they're doing as well.

First im not trying to stop the experts from doing their job. I just want them to do their job the Right Way. Trust but verify! Lots of people get paid to do their job who know what they are doing and they can screw it just as easily as they can succeed. I DO NOT want them to screw this up. And by screw it up i mean evidence becomes inadmissible and some charges get thrown out because of the way they collected information and other evidence or they get a conviction by violating the suspects rights. There exists the perception that they may be doing so, which may be due to horrible reporting, and slow/selective communications of the facts. I hope that is not the case and they can prove it in court.

Second there MAY be one or two exceptions to the warrant requirement that apply based on the info in the link. The consent rule is highly likely to have occurred with residents in the area. What I would question is the rule that i think you believe may apply here the exigent circumstances rule. I agree that in this case there was no time to get a warrant to search houses in the area. But to just breach and clear and search random property house by house street by street to me does not say the they "acted in accord with a high probability that the (random) search would turn up contraband or evidence". Im not saying they did anything wrong that would be for the home occupant to decide, it just looks they did.

The Public safety thing is defiantly abused when its used in alot of cases and is often used as an excuse to violate individual rights for the purposes of convenience and public pressure to act.

[PoorMansCamaro]

Originally Posted by PoorMansCamaro

look up exigent circumstance

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fourth_amendment

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Well then, you should know that one of the warrant exclusions applied to this situation. They weren't looking "for whatever it is they want", they were looking for a specific person which they knew was in the area and was an immediate threat to the public safety.


All I'm saying is, let the experts do their job. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure their legal counsel know exactly what they're doing as well.

Originally Posted by TAG UR IT

^^There ya go.

And...



I'd say a terrorist running around town throwing bombs at police officers, blowing people up, killing a police officer in cold blood while he sat in his police cruiser, car jacking a person to make a getaway, running over his handcuffed brother, shooting at police....should I stop there? I mean, is it just me, or would anyone else consider this nut an immediate danger??? This isn't rocket science folks...

I tried to tell them, but no one would listen.

[PIPE]

Originally Posted by Milk 1027

Well then, you should know that one of the warrant exclusions applied to this situation. They weren't looking "for whatever it is they want", they were looking for a specific person which they knew was in the area and was an immediate threat to the public safety.


All I'm saying is, let the experts do their job. That's what they get paid to do. I'm sure their legal counsel know exactly what they're doing as well.

I think the biggest issue that most here have a problem with is how it all was conducted. The extra few seconds it would have taken to politely ask the homeowners to search they're residence/property would be minimal, versus bangin on a door with the homeowner answering to numerous LEO with guns drawn and told to come out with theyre hands up and then everyone speculating as to why or what part of the 4th was violated. Secondly like Ive stated before why was the ability of the homeowner being able to defend his home/ property thrown out the window? All across the country things happen and in MOST instances its the citizens who take action. Whether it being defending themselves, calling police, etc. The people were not given NO choice in the matter at all.

I wonder how this tragic ordeal woulda played out in say Texas, Oklahoma, North Carolina?