• Hello!

    Either you have not registered on this site yet, or you are registered but have not logged in. In either case, you will not be able to use the full functionality of this site until you have registered, and then logged in after your registration has been approved.

    Registration is FREE, so please register so you can participate instead of remaining a lurker....

    Please be certain that the location field is correctly filled out when you register. All registrations that appear to be bogus will be rejected. Which means that if your location field does NOT match the actual location of your registration IP address, then your registration will be rejected.

    Sorry about the strictness of this requirement, but it is necessary to block spammers and scammers at the door as much as possible.

Boston manhunt search

Chip

ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒ&


Police pulled people from their homes under GUN POINT and treated them like criminals. Looks like not only did all comply, but there has been almost no backlash. Sheeple. A terrorist manhunt is not a reason to circumvent the law and outright violate peoples 4th Amendment right. Due process and checks and balances are still relevant even during a manhunt for a terrorist. Check out this link, too: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=59e_1366635991
 
I'd seen the first video. I'm not sure how I feel about it. How can they conduct a house to house search? I mean, "Hi, we're looking for the suspect, may we come in?" What if the person says no? They walk away?

what concerns me more are the implications of this. But first of all, AFAIK, the video is not verified.

IF that is real, how did Tamerlan go from walking cooperatively to dead in the hospital?

Why is there no video of him being run over by his brother? Did that really happen?

If he got run over, had bullet wounds too numerous to count, threw the pressure cooker bomb at police but it blew up too soon, how is he okay and walking in the video?

Numerous people were watching out their windows. What happened??

With everyone and their brother having a police radio, police can't really do anything in secret. As much.

Is the video real? Is the body real? Was he disappeared somewhere? Was the person himself even real? Who went to the hospital?

They interviewed the trauma doctor. Who was also their Monday. He said when they brought Tamerlan in, the police didn't say who it was, but he, they, assumed by the large number of police it was one of the suspects.

I really think that I find it less frightening that a couple college students were radicalized and given the task of bombing the Boston marathon than the alternative.

George Noory says, sometimes there is no conspiracy, there are just bad people.
 
I'm with Chip. Once the gov is allowed to circumvent rights on a whim then what do we have left?
 
Pretty sure that guy in the video was a bystander. I remember hearing about him on the police scanner. He fit the description, and they stripped and cuffed him. Wouldn't be surprised if he files a lawsuit.
 
I DON'T agree with it, and it leaves just as bad a taste in my mouth, but it's called exigent circumstance.

D80
 
EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES

Emergency conditions. 'Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.' United States v. McConney, 728 F.2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984).

Exigent circumstances may excuse failure to make an announcement or to wait for the occupant to refuse entry. United States v. Mendonsa, 989 F. 2d 366, 370 (9th Cir. 1993). The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of fact and law reviewed de novo. Id.

A search is reasonable, and a search warrant is not required, if all of the circumstances known to the officer at the time, would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry or search was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officer or other persons/the destruction or concealment of evidence/the escape of a suspect, and if there was insufficient time to get a search warrant.

The federal 'knock and announce' statute, 18 U.S.C. S 3109. Section 3109 requires 'police officers [to] knock, announce and be refused entry before they break into a residence. Exigent circumstances excuse noncompliance.' United States v. Turner, 926 F.2d 883, 886 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 830 (1991). Specifically, the court found that immediate entry was necessary 'for [the officers'] protection and the protection of others inside as well as to prevent the destruction of any drugs in defendant's possession or in the home.'
 
What's the alternative? Let the guy escape?

And therein lies the problem - these were extraordinary circumstances, of which the entire area was aware, and nobody wanted to see these dudes get away. Folks complied not because they were sheep, but to make sure the Tsarnaevs were caught and to avoid making the situation worse. I'm not advocating police brutality, mind you, but given this specific situation I'm not upset that a few people got manhandled - I'd have complied too...
 
I would say the police's actions fit the exigent circumstances qualifications. It was indeed to prevent further harm to citizens/officers and to prevent the suspect's escape from the Watertown area. The suspect had just blown apart innocent citizens with several bombs and then had a fire fight with police. They didn't know if he was wearing a suicide vest. Nobody knew whether he was hiding somewhere in order to blow up more people. The guy who eventually found him didn't know that he was hiding in his boat...
 
And therein lies the problem - these were extraordinary circumstances, of which the entire area was aware, and nobody wanted to see these dudes get away. Folks complied not because they were sheep, but to make sure the Tsarnaevs were caught and to avoid making the situation worse. I'm not advocating police brutality, mind you, but given this specific situation I'm not upset that a few people got manhandled - I'd have complied too...

I would say the police's actions fit the exigent circumstances qualifications. It was indeed to prevent further harm to citizens/officers and to prevent the suspect's escape from the Watertown area. The suspect had just blown apart innocent citizens with several bombs and then had a fire fight with police. They didn't know if he was wearing a suicide vest. Nobody knew whether he was hiding somewhere in order to blow up more people. The guy who eventually found him didn't know that he was hiding in his boat...

I tend to agree with the thoughts along those lines.

People knew what going on and made the choice they felt was needed with this type of situation.

If there were not bombers on the loose, I sincerely doubt people would just randomly open up and let those types of searches happen.

No way would this fly in any other circumstance.

Could certain aspects of it been done a little differently, totally, but this was clutch situation and I'm certain emotions ran wild.

It's very easy to "monday morning quarterback" this event, but in the thick of things rapid decisions have to be made as best they can.

Would I give up a little liberty to make sure a killer on the run is caught? Yes.
Would I give up a little liberty just because the police want to stiff arm people door to door for no good reason? Hell effing NO.
 
Do exigent circumstances apply to an entire neighborhood? I know to get a warrant, the places to be searched are VERY specific. I would not give up a little liberty, personally, though to word it "to make sure a killer is caught" doesn't seem to exactly apply to this situation. My dogs and I would know if he was in my house.
 
Do exigent circumstances apply to an entire neighborhood? I know to get a warrant, the places to be searched are VERY specific. I would not give up a little liberty, personally, though to word it "to make sure a killer is caught" doesn't seem to exactly apply to this situation. My dogs and I would know if he was in my house.

I'm not sure how the exigent circumstances stuff gets laid down.

Nothing like this had really been done before on this kind of scale. It was a very shoot from the hip and do the best you can type of deal.

Things could have certainly been done differently in some aspects, but in a fast evolving situation like this, snap decisions can go right or wrong in a hurry.

The man who's boat he was in had no clue or hint the suspect was hiding in his boat, much less his backyard. Until they could go outside again and he noticed something was up with his boat tarp. The guy could have been anywhere.

I'm sure a lot will be learned from with this event.

As of right now, there are at least two homeland security tactical evaluations taking place next week. The main goal of the evaluations is how better prepare officers so some of the missteps are never made again. Mini-briefings have gone on daily since it happened.

I guess it's my training and background in threat response that is keeping me from getting too riled up about this. I do not, for one second, think it was handled perfectly. There were certainly missteps, but given that this was a search on an unprecedented scale, I'm willing to give them a little learning curve room.

No civilians were hurt or shot. Policy and procedures will be addressed and changed. The crude approach will probably not happen again.

This will not set a precedence for random knock down the door searches. There is no way that would ever fly with the American people.

I'm fairly certain the difference in opinions comes from my threat assessment and response training, it's what I do as part of my career. I know how hard it is to try and do what they did up there. I am willing to bet my entire snake collection that those police officers truly only had the public's best interest at heart. Emotions ran high on all sides because of what the suspects were accused of. That manifested itself in some bad ways, and officers need to be better trained on how to deal with these situations.

I do not believe for one second those officers were using those searches for nefarious purposes. Those people are their neighbors, fellow church goers, relatives, community members and friends. Some just got too carried away when the emotions ran high, and that needs to, and will be addressed, I'm certain of it.

This was something that had never been done on this kind of scale before. There will training and evaluations of this event for years and years to come.
 
Do exigent circumstances apply to an entire neighborhood? I know to get a warrant, the places to be searched are VERY specific. I would not give up a little liberty, personally, though to word it "to make sure a killer is caught" doesn't seem to exactly apply to this situation. My dogs and I would know if he was in my house.

Well, they had a 20 block perimeter set up. Based on where they were encountered and where they lived? And Terrorist 2 was found just outside that perimeter. So it is within reason that he was very close to being found within that perimeter.
 
Autumn is right on with this - there was no way to do this perfectly, as the situation was too chaotic and evolved rapidly through the night and into the following day. Capturing one of the two suspects alive without civilian casualties and with minimal property damage sounds about as close to perfect as such a situation would ever get in a real world scenario on that scale. No liberty-infringing precedents were set here, and what the local PDs and other law enforcement groups learn from this is invaluable.
 
I am willing to bet my entire snake collection that those police officers truly only had the public's best interest at heart.

I would definitely concur with this. I've been the daughter of a cop for 30 years and I know that the majority of them, if not all are on our side. Most do not advocate gun control and will die fighting for our rights to freedom and the constitution. BUT they're like a pit bull (i.e. feel passionate and will not let up, no offense against the dog type) when innocent people might be threatened. It's a fine line to walk.

056ee99a18819ad379a02b03b89d8744.png
 
I'm also fairly certain the reason there is little to no backlash on this is because the entire event was not how a small handful of videos claim it was.

Again, I'm not saying mistakes were not made, but anyone can use creative editing to take something out of context. We will never know what happened in the few seconds before the tape started rolling or after it stops.

YouTube's existence has created a group of people who intentionally act the fool and make things worse to try and get their 15 mins of fame for "supposedly" being roughed up by a cop.

I have personally seen people taunt and push a cop to his breaking point, just to get a good video, on more than on occasion.

What gets posted to youtube is a trimmed down version of the video that just shows the "good parts." It's something that law enforcement deals with every single day.

Same for social media sites. You only get one side of the story. Fair and unbiased opinion is a thing of the past. Everyone is quick to dog pile on something without the full details.

Based on wide spread public opinion/stories from many sources, and what I'm hearing from law enforcement this was not an uncontrolled wild circus, it was handled the best way it could have been.

This will not start some crazy "mass search just we can get a look at your property" trend. That will never happen. These officers want to let people live their lives and get back to the business of protecting and serving the public.
 
I'm FAR from a hater of law enforcement, but I couldn't be more disappointed with the sentiments here. It smacks of "get rid of guns, it's for the children" and "gay marriage devalues my traditional marriage" whatever the heck that means. If this incident isn't setting precedent for martial law overriding the 4th, I don't know what is. I see where you are all coming from, but I don't like where it could end up. What happens when someone refuses police entry (like I would)? Methinks they will have a gun in their face and will be removed forcibly.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Ben Franklin
 
I'm FAR from a hater of law enforcement, but I couldn't be more disappointed with the sentiments here. It smacks of "get rid of guns, it's for the children" and "gay marriage devalues my traditional marriage" whatever the heck that means.

I just can't see that in this case. That seems like a really big leap to take.

This was about catching the Boston Bombers, over and done.

I can't see any way this could be used for gun control or anything else.

IF anything, I can see law enforcement being better trained on how to make the situations like this be less traumatic for the public. Which is a good thing. Not taking away rights, but learning how to not make people feel like they are being trod upon and working with the public better.

Anyone who tries to use this search as part of a political agenda is completely stupid. It was a search/man hunt, that's it.

Gun control to protect the kids is the most stupid platform I've ever heard.

This won't go anywhere but helping train police officers how to not to be douches if something like this ever happens again. I'm sure there will be policy changes, but it will only be for the better.

Sometimes a duck is just a duck, and I truly believe that is the case here.
 
Back
Top