Is Everyone Here OK With This?

[Grand58742]

When is it OK for armed men to point loaded weapons at 3 year old and her father carrying her in his arms and demand for him to leave the safety and comfort of their home?

Ask yourself this...what's on the other side of that closed door? You have a terrorist on the loose. Could be holed up in any number of houses (which was later determined to be outside their cordon). Who knows what's on the other side. And coming from an LEO background as well as having done my training and time, far better to be prepared for this kind of situation rather than not. We are trained, especially in active shooter situations, to go in weapon ready. Not low ready or high port or port arms, but staring down the sights and prepared to engage. And if someone gets flagged that happens to be an innocent? I'll apologize later. But in the time that it happens, I want...need to be absolutely ready because if they take me out, they not only get to kill more innocents, they have now gained an M4 carbine and an M9 pistol with enough rounds to do significantly more damage. So before you ask yourself what happens to be "necessary" or not, put yourself into that situation and those cops shoes.

Now the unanswered question...what happened immediately AFTER the saw it was a father and son? Did they lower their weapon? Did they explain the situation? Was the tone threatening? "Get out or else." The article doesn't speak to that, but does speak to the fact the cops DID in fact apologize...which I see you addressed later and I retorted.

Sorry about that... it was out of line altogether and not directed at anyone person.

I was emotional about this... Just as we all are. And speaking of that, the "emotional" response to the FEAR of the attack is what they were hoping for.

As someone else pointed out, the point of terrorism is to terrorize. Put fear into a population. Force a societal or cultural change. And typically laws passed post attack are often emotional in response. Look at Sandy Hook for examples of an emotional response to an act. Well, gun grabbing has always been in the background, but public opinion shaped the legislation in the immediate aftermath. However, good media campaigning and people taking a breath and looking at the big picture ended up helping in the long run.

And as the link to video you put up at least some of LEOs were apologizing those they were being "forced" to terrorize. That means that atleast they knew on some level they MAY be doing something wrong.

I think "terrorize" is kind of a strong word to be applying in this situation. You imply the cops WANTED to go out and shove a carbine into someone's face by using the quotes around the "forced" part. I can't speak for the LEOs on scene, but I'm fairly certain "terrorizing" the public was the furthest thing from their minds while looking for that bombing suspect.

LEO can not guarantee your safety so why try to make them. They should be defending our liberty and trying to guarantee our rights and freedoms.

No, your safety should be and in a lot of places is your responsibility. Cops can't be everywhere at once (despite what some might think) and often are called in to pick up the pieces afterwards. But in the times they happen to be proactive, they get labeled as the "bad guys" and "what a Richard for giving ME a speeding ticket!" Again, in the case of the door to door searches, they followed the letter of the law that's been decided by the SCOTUS for almost 40 years. I still have mixed emotions on this one, but understand what they were doing was legal and has been for a long time.

And I personally believe more cops defend your freedom and safety than take away. You want to blame someone for taking away your Rights, security and liberty? Try looking at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave or East Capitol Street, NE and 1st Street, NE or 1 First Sreet, NE all in Washington D.C. before looking at the local Podunk PD.

What we need to do is change our paradigm... Currently if LEO makes a mistake and someone gets away or injured that LEO is punished (in someway). But we should not look at it that way... LEO should only be punished if they error by taking away ones rights and freedoms unduly...

Which they typically are...look at what happened in NOLA after Katrina. Or any number of cases where excessive force was applied (some situations being the exception obviously). Or any number of times you read about the "bad cop" that extorts people for money or is on the take. Unfortunately, the bad news tends to cloud up the good things that happen and the times LEOs maintain public safety by getting the bad guy BEFORE they can do more harm.

For example:
We must let LEO know they can dis-obey orders which they believe to be unlawful and then support them when they do so... If the order turns out to be lawful but was "on-line" still they should be supported for at least showing some independent discernment (even if it was slightly off).

Which they are. Law classes are mandatory in all State academies. In order to enforce the law, you have to know the law.

Unfortunately, I'm guessing you will provide me any number of links that show LEOs were outside the law or ignorant of the law. Which again, clouds over the good things that happen all the time.

We need to encourage them to be more independent thinkers.

Most cops are. Have to be in that sort of job. But you seem to think us mindless robots that follow orders without question or having any discussion in our heads of right or wrong. Please don't assume all LEOs are automatons that do without thinking. Or are void of emotions. They happen to be people just like you.

What we need to do is ask and plan out now "what/where is the line?" Decide before the FEAR what is acceptable and what is NOT. I personally believe the founders already did that... but we need to think about it now.

Unfortunately, the powers that be often do just that in times where fear is not prevalent. Take gun control laws in Chicago for example. Or New York City. Washington D.C. Or any number of places prior to Sandy Hook or the theater in Colorado. Fear wasn't used to put those laws into place. Authoritarian politicians afraid of the masses put those into place. But sometimes used fear mongering to advance their agenda. And did it make any of those places safer? Look at the murder rate in Chicago and you'll find the answer.

Has the Patriotic Act made us safer or has it made it easier for "officials" to abuse their power?

Unfortunately, the Patriot Act was all about emotions like you stated before. Do I personally believe it made us safer? No...not really. Terrorists are going to attack no matter what and find ways around security measures. Put up a bigger wall, they will just find a larger ladder. Dig a moat, they will dig a deeper tunnel. It will never stop no matter how much legislation is put into effect.

Who found this Suspect, was it the "Officials" or the "Citizens"?

A citizen did...and turned in that information to the proper authorities which was the right thing to do. Vigilante justice would serve no one in this situation especially if attempting to find additional cells or terrorists on the loose.

Do you protect liberty and freedom by giving them up?

Do you have freedom by letting anarchy reign in a world without laws and those to enforce them?

Is anyone here an "Oath Keeper"? I know we have LEO and Mil (current or ex)... You took an Oath! Do you remember your Oath? That Oath did not have an Expiration date. The Oath Keepers read the #2 and #3 orders they should NOT obey...

My particular Oath, which I've taken several times over my career, says I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and bear true faith and allegiance to the same. Goes on to say obey the orders of the President and officers appointed over me.

But the Constitution was first in that line and fortunately (or unfortunately depending on how one looks at it) I've never been given an illegal order to violate the Constitution so it's never come up in case law. You can bet your behind it probably would though as I'd fight it. Now, I'm sure there have been times where orders were morally and ethically questionable (Bonus Army for example) but in recent memory and especially after Vietnam, we are taught to look for those unlawful orders and question same when they come along. "Because I was ordered to" is not a good defense this day in age.

As for the Oath Keepers, I respect their group, but need not join an organization just to be reminded I took an Oath and remember the provisions of same. I'm reminded every single day I put on our nation's uniform, do my duty and support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic.

Now the question for you...

Are you an LEO and can you speak with some certainty as to the mindset of cops? I ask because you make a lot of assumptions that are not correct. Do you have cop friends? Neighbors? Kids in school with kids of cops? Play softball together? Go to church with one?

Ever just take the time to speak to one without making the assumption they want nothing more than to jam a boot into your neck?

Pretty normal folks most of the time. But as always, in LEO (as well as those in the .mil), it's a reflection of society. You get some bad apples in with the good. Unfortunately the bad apples tend to make better headlines and get more viewers than the good stories.

[SCinPNW]

Now, on the "legitimacy" of the overall searches...

I have mixed emotions on this. I can see the exigent circumstances of the situation driving a door to door search. But only on a small scale. Maybe a few neighborhoods at most. Far easier for a judge to buy off on. Do I support that? Hmmm...under certain circumstances, maybe. Look at it from this viewpoint...

Cops go up to a door. "Sir/Ma'am, we believe there to be one or both of the terror suspects from Monday's bombing in this area, would you consent for a search of your home and premises for these individuals?" Now thinking as a cop...if they comply, nice as pie I waltz in and look around the house, make sure someone is with me as I go through since i was invited in. "Are there any other locations they might be hiding in? Do you have an attic or crawlspace? Basement? Shed in the backyard? Have you seen the individuals pictured here in this area?" I'm still guarded, but at the same time, someone is being compliant, I'm not going to force them from their house at gunpoint to search. Too many unknowns. There are areas I might miss, rooms that will take too much time to sweep and of course the inevitable lawsuit that will emerge.

Now if they don't consent, makes my Spidey Senses start coming online with one of three possible explanations:

They have something to hide.

There is someone hiding in the location immediately behind the door with a gun pointed at their head or their loved ones heads.

They happen to know their Rights and I need a warrant to conduct a full search. However, exigency applies and whether a warrant was needed is going to be decided later.

Now, I believe exigent circumstances apply in this situation. I push in the door, grab Mom by the arm in front of screaming kids, point weapon at Dad for compliance, grab children running to protect Mommy and get them outside and conduct my search...and end up on the front page of Infowars, CNN, Fox News, YouTube and the Boston Globe before the sun goes down. As posted above. And completely, technically in line with the law. Someone, somewhere authorized police to do that and I can flat guarantee you it will eventually see the light of day. However, will probably get crushed by the news of the latest Hollywood star sleeping around and going to rehab. Or the tail wagging the dog and another "crisis" erupts (doesn't sound familiar at all now does it?). But overall, someone said exigent circumstances applied and acted on that. All the while being technically legal.

Overall I'm not saying the above isn't possible to do under the circumstances the Boston and MA police faced. Or potentially didn't happen the way I outlined. Gun in someone's face? A little stretch. But when you don't know what's on the other side of the door you need to be ready to act. So I can see the reasoning. I don't think it's right by any means, and a good lawyer could argue in a the violation of the 4th Amendment. Even in the circumstances surrounding Boston, I can see exigency could be argued. However, due to the "public safety" of the situation, the 4th Amendment does somewhat give authority in this case. And/or that's what someone will claim. Not saying it's right by any means. Furthermore, the whole "public safety" and exigent circumstances thing can be stretched pretty far and definitely be abused by those in power.

Now it appears in Boston, Watertown specifically, they skipped over the nice "hiya, I'm your local Boston policeman. Can I pahk my cahh and look around?" And again, inevitable lawsuits to follow I would be willing to bet. Just like New Orleans. And in NOLA, the cops/police commissioner were found guilty IIRC. Well, not guilty, but certainly in violation of the 4th Amendment. But in this case...not so sure.

I hope you weren't counting me into that generalization of "most here." I have mixed emotions on this one. I can see from one perspective why they did it. But the other part of me says there could have been a different tactic used. I can't say what I would do in that particular situation. Public safety is one thing. Chasing down a bombing suspect is another. Rousting people from their homes and performing a search based on someone's "exigent circumstances" only emboldens those that will do it again all while creating "exigent circumstances." I saw on another site someone said this is what happens when liberals start interpreting the Patriot Act. And I can't say they are wrong with that comment. Liberals, especially those currently in power, have shown quite the disdain for the Constitution and the letter of the law. So seeing them create a situation where "exigent circumstances" apply and conduct door to door searches for "known domestic terrorists" is not outside the realm of possibility.

All in all, I don't feel the tactics used were correct. And I also happen to understand Matt's question of "what were the other options available." This isn't an easy answer to the problem. For one, 4th Amendment Rights were potentially violated seriously. On the other hand a dangerous suspect was on the loose and probably threatened public safety. Can you catch more flies with honey than vinegar? Yes, in most cases. Was it the time to be "nice" and request permission with a suspect potentially hiding behind the door with a gun to someone's head that puts the public at risk as well as the fellow officers? I don't have a good answer to that and can obviously see both sides of the coin from a citizen view and from an LEO/Mil view.

But the fact I'm having this debate in my head should be of comfort to some on here since it means I'm not brainwashed by the .mil to following orders without question lol

But to the overall point, I still have mixed emotions/thoughts and honestly don't believe there is going to be a "right" answer for this particular situation. Balancing public safety against Rights is not an easy task. I happen to agree giving up Rights for safety is not the right answer. But I also can understand why it happened in Boston. Maybe not support it, but understand it from a legal aspect of exigent circumstances as applied under the 4th Amendment.

Just a couple of web links on what I'm talking about when exigency is known to exist:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

http://www.wcl.american.edu/sba/outline_databank/outlines/CriminalProcedure_Aaronson_1.pdf

And before we get wrapped up in this as Rights being stripped recently by the Patriot Act or NDAA 2011, exigent circumstances in relation to the 4th Amendment have been around for years. Nothing new so to speak and nothing the current administration has done to further this power in recent memory. SCOTUS ruled on this long ago and has been upheld time and time again.

But having said that...could embolden them (liberals and other authoritarian types) to stretch that particular "public safety" exception and push for more "exigent circumstances" in the future.

Grand, as usual, a great post! I truly appreciate hearing from you and Matt with regards to the LEO point of view, it helps me to see things I might not otherwise.

As for me, I would most likely be fine with allowing the LEO's to search my house if they were nice about it, but if they were to come in with force and attitude I would have more of a problem with it. And then if they started scaring my children that would also be a problem. I would not want to make their job more difficult as I understand it is difficult, but at the same time if I and my children do not look anything like the bad guy then please do not treat us as such.

Just my $.02, and please take it as that as I have never been in a situation like this so I cannot speak from any experience.

SC

[Spock]

Their was/is definitely a lot of visual imaging and "programming" going on with the whole deal.

Yes most definitely pisses me off that whole areas are searched. They are only doing what they know from the Sandbox IMO. Not saying it's right, it most definitely is NOT right, but it's all they know.

Now let's look at this in REVERSE- every time the gubmint does something like that, it pisses off more people. Pissed off people tend to comply less, cause more problems, perhaps even start looking for answers to nagging questions and "feelings" about certain things.

I won't go into this too much, but suffice to say, this sort of thing SHOULD work against the gubmint.

It's like shaking the fence IMO..... Do it that much and folks will fall on one side of the fence or the other....

Think about it.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers." - Princess Leia.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

I think for the most part we are on the same page here... We are only off in "minor" details but the as you know the "The Devil is In the Details".

Ask yourself this...what's on the other side of that closed door? You have a terrorist on the loose. Could be holed up in any number of houses (which was later determined to be outside their cordon).

My question was not how they did what they did... But the question is under what authority can they enter any house in a city/town they want? Under what authority can the tell a cities business owns they can not open? Under what authority can city they can not allow you to leave your home or be your the streets?

Do you have freedom by letting anarchy reign in a world without laws and those to enforce them?

What is the primary law of this land? The CONSTITUTION, correct? Just because you make law that says its LEGAL to DO XYZ does not mean that doing XYZ is actually LEGAL... Our "Officials" get it wrong... Courts and Judges also get it wrong too... SCOTUS may say what happened in Boston was legal... that does NOT mean it is actually legal.

The searches, the lock down and in general the treatment of the citizens and this suspect were UNCONSTITUTIONAL you can not have LAW and ORDER without the ones enforcing the law to be held to the law...

If the ones enforcing the law are above the law then we have Dictatorship or a oligarchy... We really don't want either or atleast I do not...

If that city and its citizens does not get CONSTITUTIONAL protections because of some criminals blow up some pipe bombs what happens when someone really attacks us?

I am glad everything ended up "ok" but we still must do an honest AAR and come up with where is "our line". Because 2 guys just pushed a whole city way into the "Police State", they won that battle and unless we back up, regroup and decide what catching 2 criminals is worth then they will win the war too.

I say Criminals because that is all these guys were. Their MOTIVE may be different but the result is not that different than a DRUG GANG taking over a city... Like I asked before we can lock down a city for 2 guys that killed 3 people than what can we do to Chicago?

[creman]

My general thoughts on this are there is always someone on the lose for a crime, and you can't go house to house "just in case" they may be there. This situation does not fall under "exigent circumstances" because they had no reason to believe the search would forestall the imminent escape at each house they went to, they didn't know where he was. I would think a lawyer would argue they would have to see the suspect go into the home for this to apply, not just random searches. No I'm not a lawyer.

Otherwise any policeman can search my home anytime they want because there is an escaped suspect in the area. The law still applies that they need a warrant and I would think they would have to see the person escaping into the home to enter without a warrant.

With that said...I would make it very clear I do not consent to them entering my home, I have my home protected already, and I would ask them to come back with a warrant; all the while having my hands in the air and doing as I'm told. I would then get a lawyer and do what I could to make it right. I can't fight for my rights when I'm dead, and I do not wish to kill someone for trying to do their job even if they aren't doing it correctly.

[Matt In Oklahoma]

So is this a crime, terrorism or act of war? All 3 have very different rules. The Constitution is the law but it is hardly the first time it was not followed under terrorism or act of war. No one yelled about grounding the planes of private business or airport business that is private on 9-11 and for the act of war look to WW2 where just being asian got you locked up and on the other side of rights violations was Vietnam where just being a soldier got your *** kicked, in fact again after 9-11 for being olive and again in Boston for being olive and being in the race.
According to some act of war should only be soldiers, crime should only be LEOs and terrorism seems to be a gap with some falling under the patriot act but all require action from those sworn to uphold and defend.
Perhaps ROE needs to be better established and perhaps the public and LEOs needs to be better informed of what is and isn't legal during these events. I can tell you that after speaking with some who were there they are under no impression that anything was done wrong legally and in fact no action has been taken against them legally. What it is being called also has changed 3 times so again look not to the man on the ground but the powers to be who run the big show

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

So is this a crime, terrorism or act of war? All 3 have very different rules.

First I agree that WAR is Different than Crime, But I would consider terrorism as part of crime. War is conduct by NATIONS, and Crime is commetted by Individuals or "Orginizations".

Eve with that difference at what point does "inalienable rights" all of a sudden just disappear or become alienable, what part of The Constitution do they say that if we are "at war" you are no longer a CITIZEN, instead you now a SUBJECT until further notice?

Is there a past precedent? Sure does that mean it was legal then? NO... We were also allowed to own slaves at one point. Men were allowed to beat their wives. Past "precedent" does not make it legal.

look not to the man on the ground but the powers to be who run the big show

The man on the ground must also look into this now too, because they will keep getting asked to push the boundaries...

[Matt In Oklahoma]

First I agree that WAR is Different than Crime, But I would consider terrorism as part of crime. War is conduct by NATIONS, and Crime is commetted by Individuals or "Orginizations".
But what does current law say, opinions aside?
Eve with that difference at what point does "inalienable rights" all of a sudden just disappear or become alienable, what part of The Constitution do they say that if we are "at war" you are no longer a CITIZEN, instead you now a SUBJECT until further notice?
ask the WW2 asians that and the 9-11 olives held afterwards
Is there a past precedent? Sure does that mean it was legal then? NO... We were also allowed to own slaves at one point. Men were allowed to beat their wives. Past "precedent" does not make it legal.

I'm not saying I don't agree totally but again what is the law? Your trying to change the law with those who follow the law and don't make the law instead of the lawmakers. Enforcement is just that and again there are tough choices in uncharted territory when neither left nor right is correct. No one there was there with the intent of running amuk with ill intentions except towards them that attacked our own.

The man on the ground must also look into this now too, because they will keep getting asked to push the boundaries...

We are, more than you will ever know, still looking for that viable and doable answer on what to do with 2 known terrorist in the 6x6 block area and what to do different. I fight like heck everyday for our rights and have more politicians in my addy book on the computer than real friends. As a citizen I wish for no rights infringement, as a LEO I wish to not infringe but as who I am overall had I been there only God striking me dead would have stopped me from trying to get to them and destroy the real beasts who threaten our very core and would give those guilty of power greed the excuse to inact certain things and yes I would be guilty of taking it to the households for which I would be deeply apologetic later because I really love children and would never wish to scare them and I love my Country deeply. For that I might be hated here and elsewhere but I sleep just fine.
We will be having this conversation more and more I'm afraid as they will persist and in fact increase very soon and more talk is being held here than where it should be in the halls

[xdpatriot]

We are, more than you will ever know, still looking for that viable and doable answer on what to do with 2 known terrorist in the 6x6 block area and what to do different. I fight like heck everyday for our rights and have more politicians in my addy book on the computer than real friends. As a citizen I wish for no rights infringement, as a LEO I wish to not infringe but as who I am overall had I been there only God striking me dead would have stopped me from trying to get to them and destroy the real beasts who threaten our very core and would give those guilty of power greed the excuse to inact certain things and yes I would be guilty of taking it to the households for which I would be deeply apologetic later because I really love children and would never wish to scare them and I love my Country deeply. For that I might be hated here and elsewhere but I sleep just fine.
We will be having this conversation more and more I'm afraid as they will persist and in fact increase very soon and more talk is being held here than where it should be in the halls

VERY RESPECTFULLY HERE.

Matt, are there any circumstances you could foresee that you wouldn't follow orders of a search without a warrant? I may just not get it, I'm no LEO, but I still think the answer is a warrant. Again, with great respect, what would you have done if someone refused you entry into their home in this situation? It's a hard decision and a difficult situation.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

But what does current law say, opinions aside?

So you are saying it is different because we are in a "War on Terror"? Well this war is going on for how long now? How much longer will we be in this war? What about "The War on Drugs" it has been going on for what 40 years and I am pretty sure Hard Core Drug use is up, not down since it started, so that war shows no sign of being won? So we must give up our rights... NO F_ that, inalienable has meaning!

Who is a Terrorist... is the group known as "Al Qaeda" a terrorist group? If you are at war with TERROR would you help TERRORIST secure a nation to run? We have not even finished throwing these guys out of country before we give them a "more lucrative" country to run. Just look it up we knowing helped Al Qaeda take over Libya, and then *****ed that TERRORIST attacked our cia "FRONT" in Benghazi... Mainstream media reported both instances but will not actually link the two stories together...

If we are at war on drugs, then why are we helping grow drugs in Afghanistan?

I mean really the words don't relate at all to what we are actually doing...

But I digress, See this is my problem... Most of the "current" law is unconstitutional which means it is not lawful at all. But we must first get upset and fight back in speech, in the media, with our votes, and through pressure back to "The Boots on the Ground". Again we have had many Laws throughout our short history that can show us that we should not just take the "Officials" words for what is LEGAL or not... Nor do we just take the Judges (they often have gotten it wrong too) word for it either we must question and then question again. THE LEO Boot on the ground is the LAST LINE... If they don't stop and ask 'WTH'? who will?

Warrant-less Searches (both physical and electronic)
Indefinite Detainment (without due process)
Use of Drones over Sovereign Nations (which is an act of war by the way)
No Fly Lists with no Due Process
Secret Kill Lists (that includes US Citizens again NO DUE PROCESS)
TORTURE

If we will stand for this because we are in a "War on Terror"... Well I guess our freedom is gone for ever. There is always another "terrorist"... Whether he is 5000 miles away hiding in a cave or a returning Vet (yes they called returning vets terrorist) it is just a matter of time before there is another one.

---

People ask how did TYRANT get by with doing such horrors to his own people?

Well TYRANT first was good at speaking in public. TYRANT had a well intended sounding plans. TYRANT used economic problems and terrorist events to his political gain. TYRANT slow tightened the noose around his people, with each turn he had a "Key Phrase or word" like "this is good for the people" or "we can prevent crime" or "we suffer because banker bob takes our money" or "terrorist commented acts of terror" and the people never cared to notice the noose because they were told noose for some other group not them. TYRANT could not do horrors to the people without TROOPERS, the "Boots on the Ground"... And the TROOPERS would not just jump in and kill on command at first... No they needed to be "adjusted" and get used to "taking orders" so at first those orders are "lawful" or close to it... And given with "good reason" why they should so aggressive and day by day the orders to outsiders get more and more questionable but those inside following orders it is only a little worse than yesterday no big deal... And soon all the really good TROOPERS have left or have been "dealt with" and the only ones left are those that will "JUST FOLLOW ORDERS"...

TYRANT does not commit acts of HORROR no he gets the BOOTS ON THE GROUND to do it.

[protus]

like any job, you'll find your line and you'll cave and not cross it or you'll buck up and do whats right for yourself.

money rules everything,,thats why theres the "war on drugs" and the "war on terror" besides the money, these "wars" have slowly eroded our rights over time.

1984',,children of men and sabbath's war pigs seem to be fitting more and more every day.

Again..people will have to draw their lines but im afraid it will have to get much worse both politically, and economically before we start seeing a change. while everyone can still work,live fat and happy nothing will force a change.

[Grand58742]

My general thoughts on this are there is always someone on the lose for a crime, and you can't go house to house "just in case" they may be there. This situation does not fall under "exigent circumstances" because they had no reason to believe the search would forestall the imminent escape at each house they went to, they didn't know where he was. I would think a lawyer would argue they would have to see the suspect go into the home for this to apply, not just random searches.

There is a huge difference in "someone" being on the loose for not paying parking tickets and KNOWN TERROR SUSPECTS that had been spotted in a SPECIFIC AREA, had a gunfight with police and could have been using any number of houses for concealment and taken ADDITIONAL families hostage. And if that isn't exigent circumstances, I don't know what ever will qualify as same...

I'll quote People vs Ramey and the definition the judge gave on the matter of exigent circumstances:

In this context, "exigent circumstances" means an emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the claim of an extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known to the officers.

Bold emphasis added by me. And the link:

http://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/people-v-ramey-23050

I trust Stanford is an acceptable place to cite this court case?

This is my last post in this thread. Frankly some of you cannot see the facts surrounding this case because, again, you feel all police are two seconds away from slamming down your door and violating every civil right you have. So I'll put it into perspective...

In this context, "exigent circumstances" means an emergency situation

Like a bombing suspect on the loose after hijacking a car and having a gunfight with the police perhaps?

requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property

Swift action that could include ensuring the suspect didn't take shelter in a house and take an innocent family hostage?

or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.

I would think escape would be on their minds.

There is no ready litmus test

Meaning there are NO parameters or guidance on these situations

for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the claim of an extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known to the officers.

Known facts, they killed a campus police officer, hijacked a vehicle, got into a fight with police, fled the scene and, by the way, were responsible for detonating two bombs that killed three people and injured almost 200 more.

And this doesn't seem slightly extraordinary to some of you folks and would require exigent circumstances to make sure they didn't escape and do further damage on the general public? Would you rather have seen more innocents put in danger because the police had to get a warrant for each and every residence in that six block radius before being able to search? The two planned MORE attacks! And if they can't accomplish that, they could have taken out innocent families instead. But far be it from the police to stop them because some of you have decided exigent circumstances do not exist and case law that's been upheld time and time again be damned.

And in the same token, had that little dirtbag taken more hostages and killed them before moving on to the next house, everyone, including many of you here, would have been up in arms about "why didn't the police stop them sooner!" It's a lose-lose situation for the police involved. So they made the best choices in a situation of crappy choices and under extraordinary circumstances which ended up keeping the population safe.

It's way easy to sit back and Monday morning quarterback the decisions of people in a heated situation and doing their best to stop a terrorist from harming more.

[Not_Yet_Prepped]

All we know is WHAT we are being told by the "Officials" through the "Media"... And both of those groups have lied to the US more times than we could count. So when we are giving up our rights and punishing people without due process all on the "word" of known LAIRS, I have serous issues with that.

There is a huge difference in "someone" being on the loose for not paying parking tickets and KNOWN TERROR SUSPECTS that had been spotted in a SPECIFIC AREA, had a gunfight with police and could have been using any number of houses for concealment and taken ADDITIONAL families hostage. And if that isn't exigent circumstances, I don't know what ever will qualify as same...

First "Specific Area"... How do you consider a city with about a million people and surrounding towns a "specific area"... Maybe if you are using a NUKE...

So what about an escaped convict, a murder, we have someone that as been proven guilty in a court of law on the loose. How much area can we "LOCK DOWN" and for how long? How many citizens can we point our guns at to find that guy?

Known facts, they killed a campus police officer, hijacked a vehicle, got into a fight with police, fled the scene and, by the way, were responsible for detonating two bombs that killed three people and injured almost 200 more.

Someone killed a police officer but we don't know for sure who.
Someone got into a fight with police yes but again WHO...
Someone detonated some pipe bombs.
All we know is who the guy is that we found dead at the scene.

Again POLICE must remember INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY IN A COURT OF LAW.

This is incrementalization (sp?) plan and simple... I understand that it is not The Boots on The Gound that are intending it... But they are the tool being used to do it. As well as they are being taught to do what they are told...

How do you eat an elephant? One bite at a time!
How do you get good patriotic people to do bad things? One tiny push on their "line" everyday... Until that line has moved so far into POLICE STATE territory there is no going back.

Have you seen the video of these guys placing their bombs? I have not!

I have seen video of that is supposedly just minutes before the event of these suspects with packs that they assume has the bombs in them (we all saw this on the news)... But neither pack is BLACK and the bombs where in BLACK back packs? Sure you can assume your way around this fact but it raises red flags for me.

They estimate the bombs weighed 25lbs or more. Suspect #2's pack I would seriously put all my money saying he did not have 25lbs+ worth of stuff in it. Its half slung off one shoulder and danglingly like it was I have worn enough "book bags" to know you would not want to carry a pack that way in its weighted? Can it be done sure but again questions?...
And if he had bomb in it, would he not "ZIP IT UP"... its half open. Again MORE QUESTIONS?

We don't know if these guys did it or not... The boots on the ground don't know if these suspects did it or not. The "officials" that gave the press conference said that video was "described" to them as showing so they had not even seen it... and as far as I know they still have not seen the actual video...

All we know is WHAT we are being told by the "Officials" through the "Media"... And both of those groups have lied to the US more times than we could count. So when we are giving up our rights and punishing people without due process all on the "word" of known LAIRS, I have serous issues with that.

[creman]

There is a huge difference in "someone" being on the loose for not paying parking tickets and KNOWN TERROR SUSPECTS that had been spotted in a SPECIFIC AREA, had a gunfight with police and could have been using any number of houses for concealment and taken ADDITIONAL families hostage. And if that isn't exigent circumstances, I don't know what ever will qualify as same...

So any time there is a suspect that has shot at the cops, they can shut off the entire city and go door to door to search? Again, it's different if "he is in one of these 5 houses" verses "shut down the entire city and no one can leave!" Specific area =/= an entire city...I understand this is a really bad guy and trust me, I have no love lost for the man. But I get tired of rights being taken away in the name of safety when they do nothing to accomplish the goal. Read the law you quoted again (and if you look at my original post you'll see I was refering to it by the words I used):

danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect or destruction of evidence.

Imminent means known and immediate. Not a maybe, sorta kinda, so let's just do what we want because it's justified. The cops didn't KNOW where he was, so that dosen't mean they just get to do as they wish. The wording of the law means if the KNEW where the suspect was, they were allowed to enter without a warrant. Otherwise if I read the law as you have, there is always an immenent threat because somewhere there is danger of a suspect escapeing/property being damaged/who knows what else...

I have no problem with cops, I have no problem with the government, but I have problems with cops and government who forget they are here to work for the citizen. Serve and protect (not just physical safety).

[xdpatriot]

There are some really good points being made here. This discussion has my wheels turning. I'd just like to add I don't think all Officers are out to get us.