Boston Police Go Door to Door to Search for Guns, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 12 times

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 06:43 AM by pc is here

I don't want to sound unsympathetic, but, IT IS NOT MANDATORY THAT YOU LIVE IN BOSTON, VOTE WITH YOUR FEET AND JUST LEAVE.

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 07:14 AM by scientist

Originally posted by x-phile

Originally posted by wingman77What happens to the individuals who are deemed to be in illegal possession of a firearm?

Nothing.

The detectives only want to confiscate the weapon. No charges will come of it. That is the understanding. C'mon people. Less weapons in the hands on minors is a good thing, RIGHT? Am I way off base here?

no, just extremely naive.

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 09:46 AM by eyewitness86

reply to post by cavscout

You contradict yourself: If the lady had the right to refuse to be searched, then the cop did NOT have the probable cause ( or reasonable grounds ) needed to search. The MAN was HANDCUFFED and in the back of a patrol car..HOW could he POSSIBLY have reached and gotten a gun from there? He could not, and that is why the search was illegal. The cop had ALREADY agreed to let the wife go, and only as an after thought decided to toss the front of the vehicle. He should have done that as soon as he got the guy out of the vehicle, IF he was really worried aboyt some gun.

He was not: The wife, pregnant and crying, was about to leave, and there was NO WAY that the cop could claim that he had any interest in making himself ' safe ' from the lady or he would have searched the ENTIRE front of the car AND her purse...right? I mean, after all...if the wife could have grabbed a gun from under the seat, she surely could have pulled one from her purse, correct? Then why no search of the purse? because the cop was NOT afraid of any guns..he just wanted to see if he could find a joint or whatever in the car front and bust the guys back further.

Did you hear that fil;thy pig ask the man who had been Tazered ' does it hurt?"..I would have replied something that I cannot print here, believe it. How dare some scummy cop tease some innocent guy who has been Tazered becaiuse the cop was too much of a SISSY to tough the guy. In America now, the police are taught that they do not have to use their hands anymore...just weapons..They will NOT do what cops have done forever..walk up and take hold of a person and turn them around and cuff them and haul them in...NOW they have to make sure that we are all SUBDUED and face down in the dirt with some ugly fat cop's knee pressing on our necks until they break..Cowards..I hate em all..cowards.

BUT, the main poiint is that the cop did NOT have ANY reason to search after the guy was in the patrol car....and the fact that he agreed to let the wife drive away should have ended it: He just took it upon himself to do whatever he wantys to because he is GOD on the streets..don't you know? He can do anything he wants and there will always be some weak kneed wimps who will find a way to try and make it seem like the right thing...but it is NOT!! That same filthy pig would have broken as many laws as he wants to do his thing...they don't care about the law or our rights..just in making arrests and looking good for their pals.

Cops will come to a door and knock and tell lies about what they want..this " Knock and Talk ' insanity is just another step to a full blown police state. If ANYONE lets a cop into their home without a warrant they are STUPID and IGNORANT. You deserve to be treated illegally and to be beaten and falsely arrested by the scum if you believe anything they say..cops LIE, and they LIE all the time and without compunction. I let cops know that I depise them....when they wave in this rural area, I just glare at them..who are they to try and make themselves be thought of as friendly and kind? They are mean and devious and all liars and crooks, so never ever listen to them, never believe anything they say, and always hire an attorney and SUE the dogs if the step ONE FOOT over the line.

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 01:12 PM by cavscout

reply to post by eyewitness86

Originally posted by eyewitness86
BUT, the main poiint is that the cop did NOT have ANY reason to search after the guy was in the patrol car....and the fact that he agreed to let the wife drive away should have ended it:

Look man, you can give your OPINION all you want, but when you do it over legal advice you are going to get someone in trouble, and possibly open yourself up for trouble.

The Supreme Court has ruled that for officer safety reasons pigs can search a person for weapons and weapons only without their consent when they come into contact with that person. That includes the immediate area of a car or wheelchair they happen to be sitting in.

Now, the driver seat of that vehicle was off limits once the man vacated it UNTIL the woman stated that she intended to OCCUPY the driver seat.

So far as her purse goes it possible she didn’t have one, or that it was in the back seat, or when he lifted it he found it too light to suspect a gun.

And it isn’t just officer safety either. The way that woman was screeching when she was (rightfully) upset goes to show her state of mind. If she did pull a gun in her irrational state the pig would not be the only one in danger. Her husband, who the officer had placed in custody and could not defend himself or easily run could have been in the line of fire. Every person in a vehicle for a square mile would have been at risk. Had one of them died because they cop failed to perform a simple and FULLY LEGAL search the lawyers would have a feeding frenzy.

Not to mention that had he found a weapon and made sure it was locked in the trunk area or (this I don’t agree with) temporarily confiscated it he would be saving the woman's life by removing the option for her to get into a gun fight with a well armored cop.

But regardless of if he SHOULD have done it, you can’t deny that he has the LEGAL AUTHORITY to do it without showing your ignorance. Educate yourself on what the cops are allowed to do or do yourself a disservice, but please oh please stop giving legal advice on the internet when a simple Google search will show that you have no clue.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by cavscout]

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 01:19 PM by cavscout

reply to post by eyewitness86

Here we go, educate yourself: Wiki on Terry stops

External quote from above Wiki link:

police may perform a quick surface search of the person's outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on “specific and articulable facts” and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a “stop and frisk”, or simply a “Terry stop”. The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops.

I don’t agree with the SC ruling on the Terry case, I think these stops are unconstitutional, however so long as we allow the SC to make rulings on what is or is not allowed under the constitution we cant say that their rulings aren’t legal. I can live with Terry stops and don’t think they are illegal in light of the SC decision. Once a ruling does become illegal, we as Americans have a responsibility to see the wrong righted. That responsibility is heavy one, so be careful of how you criticize the SC unless you don’t mind considering yourself a coward for not standing up to them in defense of the constitution.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by cavscout]

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 08:21 PM by eyewitness86

reply to post by cavscout

I never offered legal advice, and you are simply stating a different opinion. Who says YOU have the right story?? I say the cop did NOT have the legal right to conduct a search after the driver was in the back of the car handcuffed and he had given permission to the wife to go. As an AFTERTHOUGHT he decided to search the drivers compartment, WHICH HE COULD HAVE DONE BEFORE THE ARREST HAD HE HAD ANY WORRIES ABOUT A GUN. He was looking for some dope, not a gun. Hoping for an easy bust.

So give advive to someone who thinks that you have some authority and some legal knowledge, and the next time you insinuate the I can get in some ' trouble ' over my comments please back it up showing me a law that says I have done wrong. I never offered legal advice, only an attorney can do that, and it must be for PAY!! Anyone can give their opinions on legal matters day in and day out as long as they do not take money for it or try and represent one's self to be an attorney for the purpose of fraud. YOU go read up girlie!!

reply posted on 24-11-2007 @ 08:32 PM by Throbber

My bias is not that i feel that no one should have guns - i like guns, without guns we wouldn't have the means to defend ourselves and our families.

I use the word 'we' here, but let me make it clear i can defend myself without having to resort to shooting someone in the head (you don't have to defend yourself if you can avoid getting into a situation where you are forced to defend yourself, for example*).

Important to note, however - is that gun crime is the issue here, not your rights.

If not this way, then how exactly are we going to stop teenagers from following a culture of firearms?

*This is a very literal sense a way of defending yourself - you defend yourself by not defending yourself.

Nothing makes a trigger-finger itch more than a look of defiance.

EDIT: Or, you know - you could just decide that the day someone pulls a gun on you will be a good day to die, in which case you're in a far greater mindset than your assailant - if you can move faster than he can pull that trigger.

[edit on 24-11-2007 by Throbber]

reply posted on 25-11-2007 @ 09:37 AM by TheRedneck

Originally posted by Throbber
I use the word 'we' here, but let me make it clear i can defend myself without having to resort to shooting someone in the head (you don't have to defend yourself if you can avoid getting into a situation where you are forced to defend yourself, for example*).

I sincerely hope you can... the reason a lot of people die fron guns is that they have little or no idea how (or when) to use them. A gun is a tool for damaging another living being. But so is a knife, a stick, a rock...

Important to note, however - is that gun crime is the issue here, not your rights.

I take exception to this issue statement. If this is not about our rights, then what is? Our Constitution states that we have the right to keep and bear arms. It does not limit this by saying 'unless the police disagree', ot 'unless gun crime rises', or anynother of a million phrases that could have been written into it 200+ years ago. It also says we have the right to be free from 'unreasonable search and seizure'. Again, no limiting clauses.

If it is not about rights, then this simply becomes an issue of whether you think someone should be subjected to unreasonable search and seizure because of the current conditions and the current state of mind you are in. No, this is about much more... it is about the breaking of a contract that was used to give the government of the United States power to govern within certain limits. These limits are being tested, and like with any spoiled child who tests their parents' limits, the limits must be enforced.

Sooooo... do we enforce the limits of the Constitution, or not? We're waiting for an answer, Boston...

TheRedneck

reply posted on 25-11-2007 @ 08:33 PM by BusterJiggs

Once upon a time I lived in Taxachusetts. Can't say I miss the place at all today. As far as a police officer or anyone else wanting to search my home, well, they had better have one of two things...a warrant...a bullet proof vest. There is the 2nd Amendment that the liberals and socialist academics would have you believe pertains only to a militia. BS. It pertains to every individual old enough to know how to safely use a weapon. Oh! Did I make a foe-pah. Liberal. Socialist. One in the same, right?
No one can feed me the BS that if I have nothing to hide then I won't mind them looking. I believe there's the 4th Amendment.
Boston PD...KISS THE BACKSIDE OF MY HORSE, if he'll let you get that close

reply posted on 26-11-2007 @ 12:49 PM by avingard

reply to post by Throbber

Throbber, I agree that kid's shouldn't have guns, but police have NO RIGHT, absolutely none, to search a person's house without a warrant. The only possible loophole is that if a cop thinks that there is some immediate danger happening, he can enter the house to provide assistance, but even in that case the cop has no right to search the house beyond his job to resolve the situation. These cops in Boston had no excuse either way.

It is ignorant to support unwarranted searhes when it is a direct violation of law and personal and property rights.

You live in England so perhaps you don't know, in American it is illeagl for children to own guns (you said the law protected the rights of children to bear arms). You have to be 18 to own a gun.

Moving on, I realize that many of these searches are being done with permission, but that still raises concerns. A search by police without a warrant is useless. Anything they see or find can't be used as a basis to obtain a warrant. Anything they confiscate can't be used as evidence. Really, I would argue that they have no right to confiscate things, even with the home owner's permission.
[edit on 26-11-2007 by avingard]

[edit on 26-11-2007 by avingard]

reply posted on 26-11-2007 @ 01:25 PM by kozmo

Cops are lying pigs - plain and simple. I don't trust 'em, have no use for 'em and utterly dispise them. They misuse and abuse their authority, resort to escalated force in an instant - even againt 92 year old women and 5 year old children, they lie to make their jobs easier, they misrepresent their intentions all of the time - in short - they are the scum of the Earth - no better than the criminals that they arrest. In fact, most of these pigs that I know are just as corrupt or criminally involved as the people they cuff (And taze) every single day!

Folks - your best bet is a.) NEVER answer the door for the cops b.) Never answer a single question except for your name and address c.) Never volunteer anything - a search, information, access to your vehicle or home or property etc... and d.) always cooperate to the extent that the law demands while stopiing short of giving up your rights.

I have no use for these pigs! They don't keep us safe - we are plagued by violence, drugs and crime and these lazy pissasses sit along freeways, pulling people over for speeding and then taze them.

reply posted on 27-11-2007 @ 05:41 AM by eyewitness86

Originally posted by kozmo

Folks - your best bet is a.) NEVER answer the door for the cops b.) Never answer a single question except for your name and address c.) Never volunteer anything - a search, information, access to your vehicle or home or property etc... and d.) always cooperate to the extent that the law demands while stopiing short of giving up your rights.

I have no use for these pigs! They don't keep us safe - we are plagued by violence, drugs and crime and these lazy pissasses sit along freeways, pulling people over for speeding and then taze them.

AMEN Brother!! Also, never forget to have a camera and or tape recorder handy for proving what they do....they are all liars and scum and will perjure themselves without a second thought. The BEST thing that all citizens can do is to have cameras mounted where the cops cannot miss them: If they know that they are being watched, they will mind their manners more often. Tell the cop that the video is being fed live and that your pals are no doubt sitting around a monitor watching the action right now with the phone in their hands to call your lawyer..that will shake em up!!

Pigs today rely on lies, bluffs and intimidation to get us to roll over and give up our rights...and we must be prepared to bark right back at them if they get uppity. We need to get cops off oif the throne and back into the stables where they belong.

reply posted on 28-11-2007 @ 09:36 AM by Area_X

Intimidation tactics aside, I've read every post so far and not one mentions this:
Why are the police doing something a parent should be doing themselves? Yes, your children deserve their privacy, but you have to draw a line somewhere, and common sense would tell you that that line at the very least would be drawn at guns, drugs, etc. If you're a parent and even think there's the slightest chance that your child may have a gun in your house, aren't you doing something wrong as a parent in the first place? Shouldn't you talk to your kids about it? And why wouldn't you search their room yourself? Surely you know your own home better than some policemen who're just going to come in and tear up the place with more than just your child's room in mind, that much was proven in the video. The "possibility" of kids having guns is just one more way for them to weasel their way into your home, car, etc, and invade your privacy through fear and intimidation based tactics.
Parents are next. "Excuse me, we would like to search your house for any unregistered firearms." Say no, then you really will be placed on some sort of list, probably as a potential domestic terrorist.
If you're a parent and suspect your child of having a gun in your home, you should talk to your child about it, search their room yourself if necessary, and then, as a last resort call the police for assistance. There's no reason they need to be going door to door. Period.

reply posted on 28-11-2007 @ 09:51 AM by thisguyrighthere

Wait, why shouldn't kids have guns? All the kids in my family have guns. We all shoot for a number of reasons.

Maybe if these idiots stop trying to ban things and limit things thereby making them special and magical these stupid clowns wouldn't look at a firearm as some tool of petty power or retribution?

Put the rifle teams back in the schools. Take a kid hunting. Go to the range. Join a gun club.

When's the last time a school with a rifle team had a shooting? When's the last time a kid who spends Saturdays in a tree stand with an adult go sling crack on the street corner?

Violent crime is on the rise in states with these ridiculously tight gun laws and irrational gun fears and it will continue to rise. It doesn't take a genius academic or government paid social worker to figure that one out.

reply posted on 28-11-2007 @ 11:53 AM by 2PacSade

Originally posted by thisguyrighthere
Wait, why shouldn't kids have guns? All the kids in my family have guns. We all shoot for a number of reasons.

But I bet one of those reasons isn't to shoot eachother. . . That's what these kids are doing with them.

Maybe if these idiots stop trying to ban things and limit things thereby making them special and magical these stupid clowns wouldn't look at a firearm as some tool of petty power or retribution?

Most kids in MA. have no reason whatsoever to possess a HAND gun. The kids in question are involved in illegal activities. These hand guns are just "tools of the trade" for them. They don't possess them because they think they're "cool". They use them to shoot eachother! That is a whole different story & takes it out of the arena of swiping dad's Playboy mags. to show off to their friends.

Put the rifle teams back in the schools. Take a kid hunting. Go to the range. Join a gun club.

Even though they are taking a lot of heat there are actually still 500 in the USA.

source

But these kids don't wanna belong to a rifle team, go hunting, or join a gun club.

When's the last time a school with a rifle team had a shooting? When's the last time a kid who spends Saturdays in a tree stand with an adult go sling crack on the street corner?

I have no idea, but do you honestly think that this would keep an Eric Harris or Dylan Klebold from doing what they did? Also, there is no hunting program available to the urban kids of Dorchester. . . But they do have plenty of other arts & sports programs available that also don't keep these kids off the street corners slinging crack. My guess is there's no money in them, and that's what they're after.

Violent crime is on the rise in states with these ridiculously tight gun laws and irrational gun fears and it will continue to rise. It doesn't take a genius academic or government paid social worker to figure that one out.

Honestly these laws & fears are only adhered to by the honest man. Criminals are already breaking the law. What the hell to they care about gun laws except that it just adds time to the crime!

I'm with you thisguyrighthere. I grew up shooting all kinds of weapons with my father & grandfather. I agree whole heartedly that gun safety is best learned by instruction via hunting, rifle teams, gun clubs, etc., but these kids don't want any part of those things even if they were made available to them. They have a different agenda.

Also as I stated previous- I don't believe this is the way to go by the BPD.
I think they would be much better off by soliciting requests from parents to do the checks.

2PacSade-

reply posted on 29-11-2007 @ 05:10 AM by minesweeper

Originally posted by avingard
reply to post by Throbber

You live in England so perhaps you don't know, in American it is illeagl for children to own guns (you said the law protected the rights of children to bear arms). You have to be 18 to own a gun

avingard that isn't necessarily true, in many states (not sure about mass.) and even here in cal. a minor can be in possession of a firearm. they can be in possession and control of a loaded weapon in the home and during events involving firearms outside the home(with parental permission/supervision) and firearm in question is legal.

also would like to add that i agree with eyewittness, never give up your god given and constitutional rights ever. police sould not be trusted(especially when "weapons" are involved) , they don't trust you and openly admit to it. friends of mine and myself have had perfectly legal folding knives confiscated (stolen), been lied to, threatened by false laws, searched without concent, and threatened with arrest for stating officer misconduct/ignorance of law. more i see day by day where police are involved, the more i fear for the future of this country. criminals go free, police don't care anymore and look out for themself only most of the time, and the one who try to do thier job or make a differance usally end up ethier in trouble or hating the job and quit.

reply posted on 11-4-2008 @ 07:23 AM by thisguyrighthere

I thought this article from Boston.com was pretty interesting:

Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a warrant. ...
...Commissioner Edward F. Davis has been taken aback by the criticism. Source

I don't know if it's funny or frightening that the police Commissioner is "surprised" that people don't want the police coming in and searching through their private property. Are Commissioners across the country all thinking the residents of their area are just eager to succumb to whatever will the police impose?

Really, you don't want to be carted off to a camp and have your teen-aged children sent to re-training and all of your belongings confiscated and all of your conversations recorded for safety? I'm shocked!