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: 9
38
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by intrptr
Outstanding post


Thanks!


Originally posted by aboutface
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


Yeah, I don't like a lot of things I've seen in the video coverage, but that particular moment really stood out to me as:

1) Completely out of line; and
2) Indicative of the broader and deeper issues.

I can't quite make out the last phrase of the order. It sounds something like "put your hands on the door" or something.


Originally posted by buckrogerstime
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.


That's the point. They need probable cause. "This guy we are looking for might be in this 20 square block radius" is not probable cause. The exigent circumstances exception reduces the burden on law enforcement due to time / emergency considerations, but it doesn't eliminate the need for probable cause.


Originally posted by buckrogerstime
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.


There has to be a legal basis for the authorities to perform warrantless searches. One legal basis would be under exigent circumstance exception, which eliminates the requirement for a warrant (but not habeus corpus. Another legal basis would be martial law -- or some para-martial law theory -- which would suspend most legal requirements (warrants, habeus corpus, etc.).

The issues are distinct but related.

I'm suggesting that either it was an unreasonable and grossly overly broad application of the EC exemption or it was an inappropriate de facto institution of some elements of martial law upon which authorities relied to justify their overly broad actions.

The fact that they cannot consistently rely on one or the other legal basis for a given set of actions witnessed and videotaped during the course of the process only weakens the justifications for the actions.

The OP video raises the question of exigent circumstances. There was no imminent danger. No civilians had been harmed in the previous 96 hours. Suspect #2 had not been seen in the area for some number of hours (as few as three as many as seven, it's hard to tell what time of day it is in the video). The search radius was twenty-square blocks. The authorities already knew the Suspect had been wounded and was bleeding. Etc.

There is another video, I believe the second one posted in the first page of the thread, that bears more on the lockdown / martial law aspect. In this second video, a private citizen is videotaping the proceedings from his bedroom second story window and is order to close the window and retreat into his home (and possibly further to "put his hands on the door and wait" though the last part of the command is unclear).

Under the circumstances, this was not a proper command for a law enforcement officer to issue to a citizen.




posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:07 AM
link   
I just love how a crew of govt men armed with military weapons driving around in a military vehicle ordering a person what to do is viewed as 'an advisory'.
Some people just want to be sheep.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
I just love how a crew of govt men armed with military weapons driving around in a military vehicle ordering a person what to do is viewed as 'an advisory'.
Some people just want to be sheep.


This is a much more straightforward way of saying what I've been saying. Ha!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 08:35 AM
link   
reply to post by intrptr
 


Hey man, you misunderstood my position. I am not in favor of what or how they searched homes. It's just that they didn't violate anyone's rights under current law.


Like I said I DON'T LIKE IT, but they didn't break any laws.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
reply to post by thesaneone
 


But they didnt know who else was involved and to what extent. Hence, err on the side of caution which also ties into self preservation.


It still takes DUE PROCESS to enter someone's home. They can't just remove families at gunpoint and search all homes for all their "criminal searches". Savvy???? Its against the law!



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 09:19 AM
link   
They definately did not have a consent to search...Unless you are in "hot pursuit" of a suspect, meaning you saw him run into that house then you can pursue and search it. Which they cannot claim as the last time they saw him was the night prior. They ordered them out and and stormed in to clear the house. This is illegal in so many ways.

If this is our future then we are in trouble, our Constitution is just becoming a piece of paper.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 10:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by kimish
Ok. So there aren't any house to house searches. Terrorist hides out for a few days, makes and sets more bombs, more people get killed....

I understand your points but me thinks judgement is being clouded by emotions.

(((SQUEEZE))) hugs all the way around.


Your argument is a perfect example of judgment being clouded by fear.
edit on 24-4-2013 by rockintitz because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:18 AM
link   
reply to www.abovetopsecret.com..." target="_blank" class="postlink" rel="nofollow">post by DestroyDestroyDestroy
 

Why don't the people protest more or simply refuse to do as the IIP, idiots in power, are ordering? I, for one, would never allow that freely. Even if that means them moronic @-holes pointing the guns at me will kill me. The more of us that get killed by these types of bastards, the more of us will open our eyes and learn the truth and eventually overthrow the s.o.b's.

Just my humble opinion.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 11:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Hydrawolf
 

Which part of America do we try to move away from? North America, Central America, or South America?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
Thes cops had to consdier that the kid may have made it to a safe house. Granted that may be stretching it but if he had and there were it may have ended up being like the Weathermen deal ect.....fire fight in a residental area, house fire ect.


On another note we see mass shootings, 5 folks killed and a gunman on the lose.....but no lockdowns citywide ect.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by PointDume
 


"This guy we are looking for might be in this 20 square block radius" is not probable cause.

Agreed. Sets a dangerous precident. Next time it will be 20 square miles...

And what if the police happen upon the house where a hostage situation exists and a firefight breaks out endangering the homeowners?

What happened to, "Come out with your hands up"?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Redfreak
Why don't the people protest more or simply refuse to do as the IIP, idiots in power, are ordering? I, for one, would never allow that freely. Even if that means them moronic @-holes pointing the guns at me will kill me. The more of us that get killed by these types of bastards, the more of us will open our eyes and learn the truth and eventually overthrow the s.o.b's.

Just my humble opinion.


If you're talking literally protesting, take a look on youtube. Plenty of footage there as to what can happen to protestors. Heck, here:



Regardless of whether people agreed with Occupy or not, one thing cannot be denied: protesting can really, really hurt and most people probably don't think things are bad enough here to warrant risking their hides. That's probably why and that's just protesting. You're suggesting overthrowing and well, first of all, that would even be harder to get people to support. Whereas I would protest for the protection of the Constitution (and I did protest the NDAA for the record but exited when things got...shall we say..."sketchy"?), I would not support an overthrow.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by PointDume

The OP video raises the question of exigent circumstances. There was no imminent danger. No civilians had been harmed in the previous 96 hours. Suspect #2 had not been seen in the area for some number of hours (as few as three as many as seven, it's hard to tell what time of day it is in the video). The search radius was twenty-square blocks. The authorities already knew the Suspect had been wounded and was bleeding. Etc.


The police had received five reliable tips from civilians that someone resembling the suspect was in that house's backyard, attempting to break in.

Actually, I made that up because I have no idea what they were acting on, which is also what you did when you claimed there was no imminent danger and no probable cause.
edit on 24-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:56 PM
link   
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


But the police don't get to 'make things up'.
They have to show actual reasons.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


But the police don't get to 'make things up'.
They have to show actual reasons.


Exactly. The police don't get to make things up. Here's who gets to make things up: purely speculative ATS posters who have no idea whether there was probable cause or a warrant.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by buckrogerstime
 


But the police don't get to 'make things up'.
They have to show actual reasons.


Exactly. The police don't get to make things up. Here's who gets to make things up: purely speculative ATS posters who have no idea whether there was probable cause or a warrant.

But time and again, the police do make things up, in order to justify illegal search and seizure. When they can not show probable cause, the cases are thrown out. It happens a lot. Heck, cops have been found guilty of planting evidence, what would lying about probable caus mean to them?



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by butcherguy

But time and again, the police do make things up, in order to justify illegal search and seizure. When they can not show probable cause, the cases are thrown out. It happens a lot. Heck, cops have been found guilty of planting evidence, what would lying about probable caus mean to them?


I'm sure that, in the history of ATS, ATS posters have probably lied and planted evidence.

Which is why this thread amounts to, "The police would say they had probable cause; I wasn't there and the OP video doesn't show whether they had probable cause or a warrant, but I'm going to say they didn't."

Stop the presses.
edit on 24-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   
Great thread! I appreciate all of the explanations regarding a "public safety exclusion" and martial law. Something just didn't sit right with me regarding the shutdown of Boston while the police are looking for two men. I still am not convinced that the police had any right to search through homes.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by buckrogerstime

Originally posted by butcherguy

But time and again, the police do make things up, in order to justify illegal search and seizure. When they can not show probable cause, the cases are thrown out. It happens a lot. Heck, cops have been found guilty of planting evidence, what would lying about probable caus mean to them?


I'm sure that, in the history of ATS, ATS posters have probably lied and planted evidence.

Which is why this thread amounts to, "The police would say they had probable cause; I wasn't there and the OP video doesn't show whether they had probable cause or a warrant, but I'm going to say they didn't."

Stop the presses.
edit on 24-4-2013 by buckrogerstime because: (no reason given)

You are probably aware that you do not swear an oath to uphold the US Constitution when you join ATS.

Cops are different.



posted on Apr, 24 2013 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Its also different when your lies can and do affect other peoples lives and freedom. That is where proof should be required.



new topics

top topics



 
38
<< 6  7  8    10 >>

log in

join