It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Family ripped from their home at gunpoint; Police storm the property looking for terrorists

page: 8
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
There are so many obvious problems here:

Exigent Circumstances

Even when there are exigent circumstances, there must be reasonable boundaries on time, manner and place for the lifting of the warrant requirements. If there are not reasonable restrictions on time, manner and place for law enforcement, then the authorities could summarily extend exigent circumstances to infinite bounds throughout the country for an indefinite period of time in order to secure any number of specific suspects in a wide variety of cases.

The exigent circumstances exception does not eliminate the requirement for specificity in law enforcement procedures. The exception is not designed to let law enforcement travel where they could not go, rather the exception is designed to allow law enforcement to go where they would be able to if they had proper time to get a warrant.

The exception is for cases where the officers would be able to get a warrant, but can't because of Time is of the Essence.

If we were to remove the element of time from the equation, law enforcement would not have been able to secure valid warrants for most of the locations searched and therefore their recourse to the exigent circumstances exception is invalid.

The exigent circumstances exception is not designed to allow a paramilitary police presence to shut down an entire town and conduct door-to-door searches. The exception is designed to allow police to go where they would normally be allowed to go by a judge with a warrant, except without the warrant because it is an emergency.

The relevant case:


The U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit in United States v. Rengifo indicated that “[e]xigent 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.”


Institutionalized Overreaction

The concept of institutionalized overreaction has been a huge problem since 9/11. Obviously, it's a problem that's been around as long as people have, but it's been particularly pernicious as of late. I think the U.S. being one of the richest nations in history is probably one of the factors that allows our political leaders to indulge in reactionary orgies of ineffective overreach.

The Iraq War is the most costly in moral, economic and political terms of institutionalized overreach. The drone strike program is another fine example. This "shelter-in-place" episode is the most recent example.

Every battle is won before it is fought. We lost this particular battle the moment President George W. Bush declared a War on Terror rather than adopting the more wise approach of engaging in a police action with international criminals.

There's an old saying:


You can wrestle with a pig. You both get dirty. The pig likes it.


As a country, we keep pig-wrestling. We keep getting dirtier. The pig is having a great time.

Danger to Law Enforcement

I understand that the positive motivation for the procedures in Boston were, in part, to reduce danger to law enforcement. But, frankly, that is not a good enough reason for the widespread partial suspension of rights and a partial implementation of martial law. The restrictions placed on the agents of government by our Constitution exist for very specific reasons. Those restrictions naturally and fundamentally make the job of enforcing law in this country more dangerous than the job of enforcing laws in a totalitarian dictatorship or a monarchy.

That's the deal everybody signed up for. Law enforcement in the U.S. is, colloquially, supposed to "Serve and Protect" and members of LE agencies take oaths to defend the U.S. Constitution.

The system is fundamentally designed to demand increased danger to agents of government in order to maintain the preservation of the rights of the people against government. That's the whole point.

Martial Law

For anyone who wants to argue that this wasn't martial law or at least a partial implementation of martial law, I'll simply point to a single quote from the office riding shotgun in the APC in the second video posted in the thread:


“Close your window. Go back inside your house.”


This instruction was given to a private citizen in his own home, standing at a 2nd story window in his bedroom with no apparent or imminent danger to anyone or from anything. This order was given many hours after the last confirmed sighting of Suspect #2. This order to this private citizen in these circumstances is martial law, if not in formal reality, certainly in function.

For What Gain

The lockdown search was grossly ineffective. A citizen out for a smoke / walking his dog found Tsarnaev 1,000 feet from where he abandoned his car when a 9K paramilitary force failed.




posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Wildbob77
 


You haven't seen the pictures then.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 08:29 PM
link   
Without a warrant it should have been a voluntary decision on the part of the homeowner. If it were me in my home I should have had the right to say nope...not harboring a terrorist here. Take me at my word or show me a warrant and I will oblige. I do have my rights.....or did.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 09:11 PM
link   
reply to post by PointDume
 


Don't know, if I had to pick between listening to you ramble or experts... I'll pick someone who knows what they're talking about. It wasn't martial law that you seem to be stressing




Legal experts agree that the request has been effective. “If there’s a person running around with explosives in a major population center, it wouldn't be that surprising that the response of authorities would be to ask people to not be outside,” says David Barron, a professor of public law at Harvard Law School. The heightened risk to the public, given the violence that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is already alleged to have inflicted, made officials feel the shelter in place request was necessary, but such measures might not be the standard response to every future terrorism manhunt. “If the idea is somehow that the model for how to respond–when there’s any kind of suspect on the loose related to terrorism, they’ll be telling a place to be completely shut down–that seems not at all likely,” Barron says.

Even if Patrick had felt an order was necessary, or if the situation continues, the Massachusetts state constitution empowers Patrick to take steps to ensure the public’s safety. “A state’s chief executive has ample inherent power to prevent carnage,” Harvard Law School professor and constitutional expert Laurence Tribe told TIME in an email. All steps that Patrick has taken so far, Tribe explained, appear to fully comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.





“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School. “The governor said he wants to use sheltering in place. Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”


Source



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Laxpla
Don't know, if I had to pick between listening to you ramble or experts... I'll pick someone who knows what they're talking about. It wasn't martial law that you seem to be stressing




Legal experts agree that the request has been effective... "it wouldn't be that surprising" says David Barron, a professor of public law at Harvard Law School.


Professor Barron definitely knows what he is talking about. But I certainly don't approve of what he is talking about, nor do I think a majority of U.S. citizens.

Why?

Because:

Professor Barron is one of the co-authors and I believe the sole signatory of the original and still classified legal opinion supporting the targeted killing of U.S. citizens abroad (the opinion upon which the subsequently released "white paper" is founded). While, Prof. Barron is certainly a legal expert of significant standing, his opinion is antithetical to my opinion. From my point-of-view, his authority on the wise boundaries of martial authority in the U.S. is of questionable value.


“A state’s chief executive has ample inherent power to prevent carnage,” Harvard Law School professor and constitutional expert Laurence Tribe told TIME in an email. All steps that Patrick has taken so far, Tribe explained, appear to fully comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments.


Professor Tribe sits a bit more towards the progressive/authoritarian end of the spectrum than I do. He is a Constitutional Law scholar who has generally supported significant gun control.

His opinion that "the steps that [Governor] Patrick has taken... appear to fully comply with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments." Is simply an expert opinion from one side of the legal/political spectrum.

The matter is definitely unsettled enough for someone with standing to bring an action that would survive summary judgement. Whether they would prevail is a question for the courts.



“The lockdown is really voluntary, to be honest with you,” says Scott Silliman, emeritus director of the Center on Law, Ethics and National Security at Duke Law School.


Is it really voluntary or is it just plain voluntary?

Or is it not really voluntary, but we'll qualify "voluntary" with "really" since then we can successfully obfuscate the exact level and nature of the voluntariness?



“Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you’re dealing with a pandemic, where you’re telling people, ‘You may have been exposed and we want you to stay exactly where you are so we can isolate everything and we’ll come to you.’”


"Sheltering in place is a practice normally used if you're dealing with a pandemic" suggests to me that such a step is normally reserved for much more extreme situations than a single violent criminal on the loose.

Compare this situation with an active serial killer who's cumulative body count may well exceed the Boston Bomber's body count by an order of magnitude. Would similar steps be justified in this situation?

One of the key elements of analysis in a martial law situation from a legal standpoint is whether the civil courts and systems are functional. (Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 Wall.) 2 (1866)).

The civil systems were certainly still functional in Boston.

The exigent circumstances exception was stretched beyond all recognizable form.

Another serious consideration arises from the militarization of the police forces. Paramilitary creep has brought elements of law enforcement to the force level equivalent of the armies of many medium-sized nations.

Perhaps, we should be on guard for "back dooring" martial law. Authoritarian-minded leaders don't need to worry about bringing the military to the streets if they slowly grow a military inside of the local law enforcement operations already on the streets.

A claim of exigent circumstances is much less damaging to the rights and remedies of the citizens when two uniformed officers in a patrol car are pursuing an armed robbery suspect. The similar claim when a literal army of 9,000 agents of the government, many armed with military-level equipment, fully locking down an entire town.

The activities of paramilitary units on the streets of Boston verged on martial law.

Even if these activities did not quite reach that level, at best the activities put our system and society on a slippery slope that leads to the point where martial law and military or para-military policing becomes an accepted practice.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 10:45 PM
link   
For instance if you don't condone to the searches, what if that a hole got into your house without you knowing then murders everyone in your house all because you didn't agree. The jobs done you didn't hear about any other agenda other then finding the supposed bomber. I think if you were locked in your house all day and had a bomber on the loose you wouldn't mind armed people " flexing there guns around your house." Although I do find it odd the way the government displayed how easy it is to go # with your # whenever they want, you can't expect much less though.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


I'd be happy to leave my home for a few minutes while the cops search for a killer. What happened to Americans sticking together? People died and other were terribly wounded. As an American, you should make it as easy for the police to find these people as you can. Unless you have something to hide, what's the problem?



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by queenofsheba
Without a warrant it should have been a voluntary decision on the part of the homeowner. If it were me in my home I should have had the right to say nope...not harboring a terrorist here. Take me at my word or show me a warrant and I will oblige. I do have my rights.....or did.


And your home would have been guarded until they got a warrant if you did that.



posted on Apr, 23 2013 @ 11:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusCrime
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


I'd be happy to leave my home for a few minutes while the cops search for a killer. What happened to Americans sticking together? People died and other were terribly wounded. As an American, you should make it as easy for the police to find these people as you can. Unless you have something to hide, what's the problem?


Are you serious? So just because you don't want cops in your house you have "something" to hide? Why do we even have a 4th amendment in the first place!!? By your logic it's useless because anyone that flexes their rights has "something to hide". That's the most asinine comment I have heard thus far. Abolish the constitution entirely!!

You ask what happened to Americans sticking together? That's what I would like to know. What happened to Americans sticking together to DEFEND the constitution!? What the hell!? When we did we become such pu**ies!?

And when did Americans become so stupid that you can't lock down your own house, that you can't keep track of who is and who isn't inside your own home!? How foolish is someone that they NEED police to keep security checks on YOUR own home?

edit on 23-4-2013 by S3rvoV3ritas because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:04 AM
link   
I haven't read the whole thread yet, so I dont know if this has been posted yet but..

I dont think this was a family, or a search for a terrorist we are seeing here. I think what we are seeing is the local LE using the situation to their advantage and just "shaked down" a local gang house or dope house.

Notice how many males just came out of there. And the mix of race and what not? They aren't ALL family thats for sure.
I could be completely wrong too. But, I wouldn't put it past em.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
OK so who was RIPPED from there home, they banged on the door and then door was opened from inside. Also did the person filming this do a follow up a few hours later and interview there neighbors.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   
Can you give me another reason that house was targeted for search?
Or tell me how many other houses were searched in this manner and for what reasons?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by Chickensalad
Can you give me another reason that house was targeted for search?
Or tell me how many other houses were searched in this manner and for what reasons?


Instead of telling you to go look it up, ill just show you.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by PointDume
There are so many obvious problems here:

Martial Law

For anyone who wants to argue that this wasn't martial law or at least a partial implementation of martial law, I'll simply point to a single quote from the office riding shotgun in the APC in the second video posted in the thread:


“Close your window. Go back inside your house.”


This instruction was given to a private citizen in his own home, standing at a 2nd story window in his bedroom with no apparent or imminent danger to anyone or from anything. This order was given many hours after the last confirmed sighting of Suspect #2. This order to this private citizen in these circumstances is martial law, if not in formal reality, certainly in function.


Bravo for your post, all of it. The part where the videographer was ordered to shut his own window sent real bad chills throughout my body. It clearly illustrated that the police viewed the citizens as prisoners to be ordered around rather than as the people they are paid to serve.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:33 AM
link   
reply to post by PointDume
 

Outstanding post. So glad you took the time to enlighten everyone with your knowledge of the law. Thank you.


The system is fundamentally designed to demand increased danger to agents of government in order to maintain the preservation of the rights of the people against government. That's the whole point.


Indeed. In the service of the law.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 01:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by rockymcgilicutty
reply to post by intrptr
 


LOL I do abide,
I don't like what they did. But they didn't violate any rights.

I thought you had seen this thread.

This Thread

Considering your position there I don't understand your stance here. But thats okay now. You don't have to convince me its okay to search peoples homes one more time. I know they do it.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:09 AM
link   
Once the homes were searched why were the residents not allowed right back inside? Has anyone offered an explanation for that?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:51 AM
link   
reply to post by PointDume
 



If we were to remove the element of time from the equation, law enforcement would not have been able to secure valid warrants for most of the locations searched and therefore their recourse to the exigent circumstances exception is invalid.


Um, you can't remove time from the "exigent circumstances" equation because it's right in the NAME OF THE EQUATION.

I'm amazed you started your dissertation with an explanation of the "exigent circumstances" doctrine, since it explains exactly why local police do not need a warrant to conduct home searches when in hot pursuit of a felon or when there is a risk of imminent danger.

If the police have probable cause to believe a dangerous active terrorist is in a house, they do not need to trundle down to a superior court to wait in line for a judge to sign off on a warrant.

There is no basis anywhere in that video to even suggest that police lacked grounds for a warrant. Moreover, for all I know, they may very well have had a warrant.
edit on 24-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusCrime
reply to post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 


I'd be happy to leave my home for a few minutes while the cops search for a killer. What happened to Americans sticking together? People died and other were terribly wounded. As an American, you should make it as easy for the police to find these people as you can. Unless you have something to hide, what's the problem?



is that a meme or something now?

"if you aren't doing anything wrong you won't have anything to hide'?

How about this ... my PRIVATE stuff is MY Business and NO ONE else's!!!!

Got it? If the police are going to search my home, they had better have a warrant ....period. No ifs ands or buts. No "but its for the children" BS - the suspect wasn't even found by the police, and he wasn't even in the area they were searching through people's underwear drawers ...


Just adding more fuel to the fire for CISPA are we?
edit on 24-4-2013 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)

edit on 24-4-2013 by GeisterFahrer because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by PointDume

A claim of exigent circumstances is much less damaging to the rights and remedies of the citizens when two uniformed officers in a patrol car are pursuing an armed robbery suspect. The similar claim when a literal army of 9,000 agents of the government, many armed with military-level equipment, fully locking down an entire town.


There is no direct relationship between exigent circumstances (which pertains to warrantless search-and-seizure) and an advisory "lockdown" (as a matter of public safety). I suppose the only commonality is that they both involve government operations in an emergency. If you're extrapolating from the OP video, it is not at all clear why exigent circumstances is inapplicable. If you're referring to some other videos/incidents, it is not at all clear what they are.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in

join