If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNSNews)   Requiring a warrant to search peoples homes is sooo yesterday   (cnsnews.com) divider line 578
    More: Scary, Watertown, Watertown, Massachusetts, warrants, search warrants  
•       •       •

4521 clicks; posted to Politics » on 26 Apr 2013 at 11:59 AM (50 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



578 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-26 11:07:10 AM
And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.When they ask to search your house, you can say no.  Ask to see a search warrant.
 
2013-04-26 11:10:53 AM
Do not have the worrying as the individuals who believe such with strongness about the Second Amendment will have the consistency and will also do the banning together on the issue of the Fourth Amendment.  You can expect the lobbying and the outrage and the Facebook pictures any day now of this contingent who has the wish of fighting for the constitu...LAUGHTER OL I CANNOT EVEN FINISH THE THOUGHT OF ME, OF COURSE THOSE PEOPLE HAVE NOT THE PROBLEM WITH THIS!
 
2013-04-26 11:16:33 AM
I knew someone would go there.  Called it last week.  I'll have to find the thread.
 
2013-04-26 11:20:03 AM
l3.yimg.com

Don't worry, your regular milk delivery will not be interrupted when full community lock downs start.
 
2013-04-26 11:22:52 AM

meow said the dog: Do not have the worrying as the individuals who believe such with strongness about the Second Amendment will have the consistency and will also do the banning together on the issue of the Fourth Amendment.


Oh, wait, here is some actual, you know, evidence of that:

NRA Briefs Defend the Fourth Amendment
The NRA and the California Rifle and Pistol Association Foundation have filed two "friend of the court" briefs in U.S. Supreme Court cases involving the Fourth Amendment's protection against unreasonable searches and seizures.The cases highlight the importance of other provisions of the Bill of Rights in protecting the rights of gun owners and hunters.

As they say, read the farkin' articles.


 
2013-04-26 11:30:18 AM
Warrant? We don't need no stinkin warrants.
 
2013-04-26 11:30:41 AM
Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.
 
2013-04-26 11:32:04 AM
The War On Drugs made warrantless searches the new normal.

People only are noticing now because it's starting to happen to middle class white people.
 
2013-04-26 11:32:16 AM
Yes.  Obama is going to personally come to each of our homes and search through your underwear for anything illegal.
 
2013-04-26 11:33:57 AM
Oh, and it's not like the NRA is a recent convert, either.  From NRAILA.org :


New Search Law May Provoke Fourth Amendment ChallengePosted on October 29, 2001

The anti-terrorism package contains a provision expanding the authority of federal law enforcement officers to conduct covert searches. Unlike other provisions broadening law enforcement power, this one does not have a "sunset" or time limit attached that would allow the lawmakers to revisit its necessity at a later date. And, the sneak-and-peek language is not restricted to terrorism investigations.
Unlike the propaganda about them, they were concerned about possible Fourth Amendment issues with terrorism legislation less than 2 months after the 9/11 attacks.
 
2013-04-26 11:35:17 AM
After all, who ever heard of "shelter-in-place" before Friday, April 19, 2013?

We have that when we have major snowstorms or hurricanes. The governor tells people to stay off the roads and stay indoors, stay where you are until its safe. Its happened more than once in the last couple of years.
 
2013-04-26 11:36:45 AM

Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.


A bunch of people who fit the very description of the term "jack-booted thugs" show up at your door, armed with machine guns and military style uniforms and body armor, and you're going to refuse entry?

You got more balls than I probably would in that situation.
 
2013-04-26 11:36:54 AM

dittybopper: The cases highlight the importance of other provisions of the Bill of Rights in protecting the rights of gun owners and hunters.


LAUGHTER OL so by this accounting you are doing the suggestion that the people of these houses were the gun owners?  LAUGHTER OLSATS.
 
2013-04-26 11:37:33 AM

ManateeGag: Yes.  Obama is going to personally come to each of our homes and search through your underwear for anything illegal.


Don't be stupid.  He'd send his minions instead.
 
2013-04-26 11:46:10 AM

ManateeGag: Yes.  Obama is going to personally come to each of our homes and search through your underwear for anything illegal.


Been done.


www.moviequotesandmore.com
 
2013-04-26 11:48:11 AM

meow said the dog: dittybopper: The cases highlight the importance of other provisions of the Bill of Rights in protecting the rights of gun owners and hunters.

LAUGHTER OL so by this accounting you are doing the suggestion that the people of these houses were the gun owners?  LAUGHTER OLSATS.


Well, given that at a minimum, approximately 40% of households in the US have a gun*, I think it's reasonable to assume that some fraction of the houses searched in Watertown had guns in them.  We may quibble about the percentage, but unless they only entered 5 or 6 homes without a warrant, it's almost a mathematical certainty that some of those they entered had guns in them.

In the end, though, it doesn't matter if the violation of the Fourth Amendment was because you had a bible, or a printing press, or a computer, or a gun.  Fourth Amendment protects you in all those cases, or in none.

The Bill of Rights is *NOT* ala carte, and implying that an organization that concentrates on one of them doesn't care about the others, especially in the face of contrary evidence (which I posted), is stupid.  Of course the NRA is only going to get involved when it involves guns.  Duh.  Just like the American Radio Relay League only gets involved in cases where amateur radio is involved.  Single issue advocacy groups are like that.  They don't have unlimited resources.

*And that number is likely much higher, given the "none of your farkin' business" attitude many gun owners would have when asked that question by a stranger
 
2013-04-26 11:55:48 AM

dittybopper: Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.

A bunch of people who fit the very description of the term "jack-booted thugs" show up at your door, armed with machine guns and military style uniforms and body armor, and you're going to refuse entry?


I guess we can all stop pretending that Americans need big guns to stand up to the government.  If they can't stand up to these guys, all is lost.

So, when does the revolution start?
 
2013-04-26 12:04:00 PM
I think we just witnessed the beginnings of the military/police state.
 
2013-04-26 12:06:23 PM
Had the police searched a house for the terrorist, found pot plants, and used that as evidence in a crime unrelated to the terrorist attacks, then you might have a point. But they didn't, so you don't, so shut up.
 
2013-04-26 12:07:07 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.


As it was pointed out in the article,  Its not really consensual when the people at your door have military grade weapons pointed at your head.
 
2013-04-26 12:07:51 PM
 
2013-04-26 12:08:28 PM

Lost Thought 00: Had the police searched a house for the terrorist, found pot plants, and used that as evidence in a crime unrelated to the terrorist attacks, then you might have a point. But they didn't, so you don't, so shut up.


Your missing the point.  The 4th amendment doesn't just protect you from being convicted based on an illegal search and seizure,  Its supposed to prevent the search from happening in the first place.  That is the purpose of requiring a warrant.
 
2013-04-26 12:08:48 PM
And Alex Jones makes another million...
 
2013-04-26 12:11:13 PM

Cheron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_la w


This would be a valid point had the police watched the suspects enter the house. and knew for a fact that he was in there.
 
2013-04-26 12:16:35 PM

vernonFL: After all, who ever heard of "shelter-in-place" before Friday, April 19, 2013?

We have that when we have major snowstorms or hurricanes. The governor tells people to stay off the roads and stay indoors, stay where you are until its safe. Its happened more than once in the last couple of years.


Yeah, quite common on the Texas coast when a hurricane gets close and evacuations are stopped.
 
2013-04-26 12:17:10 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.


This.

The police weren't searching people's homes for evidence to be used against them as evidence in a criminal trial. They were looking for a criminal suspect who, for all they knew, might be hiding with or without the knowledge of the resident and was considered armed and dangerous. I don't recall anyone (up until now) crying about violations of their civil rights because the police were trying to keep the residents of Watertown safe. There's a big difference between searching for wilfull criminal activity and hunting for a suspected felon who'd just as soon kill anyone who stands in their way.
 
2013-04-26 12:17:34 PM

Warlordtrooper: Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.

As it was pointed out in the article,  Its not really consensual when the people at your door have military grade weapons pointed at your head.


Are they giving orders or asking you to do something? If it is the latter then it is still consensual.  A reasonable person who knows the law would know that they have the right to deny that entry.  The team isn't going to say "can we enter" be told "no" and then start shooting.  They would follow the "no" up with "we are entering anyway, move out of the way".

At that point anyone with a brain moves the hell out of the way and sues later.


Warlordtrooper: Your missing the point.  The 4th amendment doesn't just protect you from being convicted based on an illegal search and seizure,  Its supposed to prevent the search from happening in the first place.  That is the purpose of requiring a warrant.


This, but the correct response is to affirm your rights, make it clear the police are acting against your will when searching and seizing, and then fight it later in court.

pjbreeze: I think we just witnessed the beginnings of the military/police state.


Can we stop being drama queens and ignore the way police have been in the rest of american history?

I swear people think every single incident is step one on the slippery slope of DOOOM.  That kind of talk is worse than useless. It is right up there with saying Obama's election is the first step towards 1000 years of darkness.
 
2013-04-26 12:18:29 PM
It's OK; we're authorized.
 
2013-04-26 12:18:43 PM
People are missing the point that even with 10,000 police and suspended civil rights, they did not catch the guy.
 
2013-04-26 12:19:45 PM

Lost Thought 00: Had the police searched a house for the terrorist, found pot plants, and used that as evidence in a crime unrelated to the terrorist attacks, then you might have a point. But they didn't, so you don't, so shut up.


Hey, there!  Grab a mirror and look at yourself..... yup -- you, right there, you're a big part of the problem.

Rights need to be exercised and protected, or they will be lost.  What happened in Watertown infuriated me, and should infuriate anyone who gives even half a damn about any clause in the Bill of Rights.  Yes, three people were killed and many, many horrifically injured, but that does not justify an indistinguishable-from-military-action invasion of heavily-armed police officers and armored vehicles, nor warrantless at-gunpoint searches of private residences.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," and "if they didn't use what they illegally found, you have nothing to biatch about" are equally unacceptable dismissals of egregious transgressions.

/ have told heavily armed cops in the middle of a manhunt that they'd need to come back with a warrant, then shut the door on them
// have nothing to hide, but principles are important
 
2013-04-26 12:21:31 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martial_law#United_States

I understand exigent circumstances. But. Has a judge ever given a search warrant for an entire town?
I am certain that they would have been able to FIND a judge. But would the judge have said, NO! No warrant for the whole town.
If you want to do that, you MUST declare marshall law. PERIOD.

Could have been interesting either way.
Stranger still, I wonder how many lawsuits will come out of this.
 
2013-04-26 12:22:08 PM

Warlordtrooper: Cheron: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_la w

This would be a valid point had the police watched the suspects enter the house. and knew for a fact that he was in there.


I think you mean that it would be a valid point if you wanted it to be, but you don't so you'll just pretend it doesn't apply because of an imaginary requirement you just made up.
 
2013-04-26 12:23:13 PM

mcreadyblue: People are missing the point that even with 10,000 police and suspended civil rights, they did not catch the guy.


Suspension of civil rights doesn't become justified just because the cops get their man.
 
2013-04-26 12:25:29 PM
I was wondering when this would make fark. My 'libertarian' co worker has been biatching about it since it happened. His actual words have been "the Media is sweeping it under the rug. Only the blaze, drudge and info wars is covering it. They confiscated people's guns. We have no rights anymore"

I know, cool story
 
2013-04-26 12:25:45 PM

namatad: I understand exigent circumstances. But. Has a judge ever given a search warrant for an entire town?
I am certain that they would have been able to FIND a judge. But would the judge have said, NO! No warrant for the whole town.
If you want to do that, you MUST declare marshall law. PERIOD.

Could have been interesting either way.
Stranger still, I wonder how many lawsuits will come out of this.


I would say no. A judge has never done that.  Warrants have to be pretty specific about what they going to search and why.  Say the warrant is for a stolen car.  They get to a suspects house they can't barge in and start rifling through desks and bureaus.... because a car isn't going to be in there.....
 
2013-04-26 12:30:28 PM

SFSailor: Lost Thought 00: Had the police searched a house for the terrorist, found pot plants, and used that as evidence in a crime unrelated to the terrorist attacks, then you might have a point. But they didn't, so you don't, so shut up.

Hey, there!  Grab a mirror and look at yourself..... yup -- you, right there, you're a big part of the problem.

Rights need to be exercised and protected, or they will be lost.  What happened in Watertown infuriated me, and should infuriate anyone who gives even half a damn about any clause in the Bill of Rights.  Yes, three people were killed and many, many horrifically injured, but that does not justify an indistinguishable-from-military-action invasion of heavily-armed police officers and armored vehicles, nor warrantless at-gunpoint searches of private residences.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," and "if they didn't use what they illegally found, you have nothing to biatch about" are equally unacceptable dismissals of egregious transgressions.

/ have told heavily armed cops in the middle of a manhunt that they'd need to come back with a warrant, then shut the door on them
// have nothing to hide, but principles are important


You're not protecting your rights you're being an *sshole. There's a difference. A reasonable person knows how to tell the difference.
 
2013-04-26 12:30:57 PM

Into the blue again: I was wondering when this would make fark. My 'libertarian' co worker has been biatching about it since it happened. His actual words have been "the Media is sweeping it under the rug. Only the blaze, drudge and info wars is covering it. They confiscated people's guns. We have no rights anymore"

I know, cool story


When you find yourself in agreement with Alex Jones, its time to step back, take a deep breath, and seriously look at the situation as rational as possible.

After you're done, if you find yourself still in agreement with Alex Jones, start over and repeat until you aren't.
 
2013-04-26 12:31:51 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2013-04-26 12:32:38 PM

Godscrack: [l3.yimg.com image 310x466]

Don't worry, your regular milk delivery will not be interrupted when full community lock downs start.


That's not regular milk, it's TACTICAL milk!
 
2013-04-26 12:32:41 PM
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/511928.html Milton Mayer, They Thought They Were Free, The Germans, 1938-45 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1955)

"What no one seemed to notice. . . was the ever widening gap. . .between the government and the people. . . And it became always wider. . . the whole process of its coming into being, was above all diverting, it provided an excuse not to think for people who did not want to think anyway . . . (it) gave us some dreadful, fundamental things to think about . . .and kept us so busy with continuous changes and 'crises' and so fascinated . . . by the machinations of the 'national enemies,' without and within, that we had no time to think about these dreadful things that were growing, little by little, all around us. . ."

"Each step was so small, so inconsequential, so well explained or, on occasion, 'regretted,' that unless one understood what the whole thing was in principle, what all these 'little measures'. . . must some day lead to, one no more saw it developing from day to day than a farmer in his field sees the corn growing. . . .Each act. . . is worse than the last, but only a little worse. You wait for the next and the next. You wait for one great shocking occasion, thinking that others, when such a shock comes, will join you in resisting somehow."

"You don't want to act, or even talk, alone. . . you don't want to 'go out of your way to make trouble.' . . .But the one great shocking occasion, when tens or hundreds or thousands will join with you, never comes. That's the difficulty. The forms are all there, all untouched, all reassuring, the houses, the shops, the jobs, the mealtimes, the visits, the concerts, the cinema, the holidays. But the spirit, which you never noticed because you made the lifelong mistake of identifying it with the forms, is changed. Now you live in a world of hate and fear, and the people who hate and fear do not even know it themselves, when everyone is transformed, no one is transformed. . . .You have accepted things you would not have accepted five years ago, a year ago, things your father. . . could never have imagined."
 
2013-04-26 12:33:25 PM

offmymeds: I don't recall anyone (up until now) crying about violations of their civil rights because the police were trying to keep the residents of Watertown safe.


Go back to the threads on here of that night.  There were people here screaming about it, some were more sane than others.

Personally, I've yet to see any sort of definitive break down of how many homes actually had police search inside, and of those how many invited the police in vs those that didn't.  It seems to me to be mostly speculation at this point.  I remember listening to the scanner that night, where one lady called in to complain that her house HADN'T been searched, but the police had moved on to a different street, and she wanted the police to come back and search her house.  And I haven't seen any articles talking with home owners claiming they were forced against their will to let the police search their house, or felt they couldn't object because the police had guns.
 
2013-04-26 12:34:57 PM

dittybopper: And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?... The Organs would very quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and transport and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt! If...if...We didn't love freedom enough. And even more - we had no awareness of the real situation.... We purely and simply deserved everything that happened afterward. - Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn.When they ask to search your house, you can say no.  Ask to see a search warrant.


I only got through 2 volumes of The Gulag Archipelago before the relentless misery and despair got too much.

But just for balance and all that, nothing to hide, nothing to fear, if you object you must be a terrorist, and so on, you can fill in the rest yourselves.
 
2013-04-26 12:35:28 PM

offmymeds: Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.

This.

The police weren't searching people's homes for evidence to be used against them as evidence in a criminal trial. They were looking for a criminal suspect who, for all they knew, might be hiding with or without the knowledge of the resident and was considered armed and dangerous. I don't recall anyone (up until now) crying about violations of their civil rights because the police were trying to keep the residents of Watertown safe. There's a big difference between searching for wilfull criminal activity and hunting for a suspected felon who'd just as soon kill anyone who stands in their way.


Have you watched any of the videos of the residents being "asked" to leave their homes for search ?

I watched on yesterday and they had everyone leaving the house at gun point, one by one they were allowed to leave the house. Hands on their heads, pat downs from multiple officers on the way out and down the street. Being screamed at by law enforcement, essentially being treated like criminals. The police officers spend a very long time in the peoples home. all the while they are pointing automatic weapons at the home owners.

The video starts as the police pound on the door. They don't appear to give the occupants a choice as to having their home searched.

This is utter BS. I get that the police were scared as one of their own got killed but that does not and should not be the basis of locking down neighborhoods, forcing people from their homes at gun point and basically shooting up the neighborhood.
 
2013-04-26 12:37:20 PM

kindms: I watched on yesterday


Go ahead and show it to us, I'd think that would be bigger news...you know, if it were true.
 
2013-04-26 12:38:44 PM

Dr_luckyz: kindms: I watched on yesterday

Go ahead and show it to us, I'd think that would be bigger news...you know, if it were true.


It was on a CD that my cousin's brother-in-law's barber had..... I just can't seem to find it any more.
 
2013-04-26 12:39:19 PM
Sheriff Joe is now rubbing his hands in anticipation of the next time a Mexican-looking guy commits a violent crime. Knock down every door, take in every person matching the description of "hispanic male", just to be sure.
 
2013-04-26 12:40:39 PM

Dr_luckyz: kindms: I watched on yesterday

Go ahead and show it to us, I'd think that would be bigger news...you know, if it were true.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8
 
2013-04-26 12:40:57 PM

hobberwickey: SFSailor: Lost Thought 00: Had the police searched a house for the terrorist, found pot plants, and used that as evidence in a crime unrelated to the terrorist attacks, then you might have a point. But they didn't, so you don't, so shut up.

Hey, there!  Grab a mirror and look at yourself..... yup -- you, right there, you're a big part of the problem.

Rights need to be exercised and protected, or they will be lost.  What happened in Watertown infuriated me, and should infuriate anyone who gives even half a damn about any clause in the Bill of Rights.  Yes, three people were killed and many, many horrifically injured, but that does not justify an indistinguishable-from-military-action invasion of heavily-armed police officers and armored vehicles, nor warrantless at-gunpoint searches of private residences.

"If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about," and "if they didn't use what they illegally found, you have nothing to biatch about" are equally unacceptable dismissals of egregious transgressions.

/ have told heavily armed cops in the middle of a manhunt that they'd need to come back with a warrant, then shut the door on them
// have nothing to hide, but principles are important

You're not protecting your rights you're being an *sshole. There's a difference. A reasonable person knows how to tell the difference.


I know there is a terrorist on the loose, who set off bombs in a crowd which killed and maimed people including children and also had a shoot out with some cops and threw some bombs at them and also would kill me in a heartbeat and if he gets away he will do it again to more innocent people including children as, but you'll have to come back later. I'm baitin'
 
2013-04-26 12:41:00 PM

Lionel Mandrake: Did someone say no who was then tossed aside   If so, I'm interested.  If everyone said "yeah, go ahead" then stop the pants-wetting.


You are painfully stupid. When a group of hyped up guys waving guns around come to your door you're really going to have the presence of mind to think clearly?

These are supposedly professional law enforcement officers that have been trained to know better than this. They knew what they were doing.

I guess its too bad they weren't harassing people actually breaking the law at an OWS event so liberals could get angry about police abuse of power.
 
2013-04-26 12:41:43 PM

Warlordtrooper: Lost Thought 00: Had the police searched a house for the terrorist, found pot plants, and used that as evidence in a crime unrelated to the terrorist attacks, then you might have a point. But they didn't, so you don't, so shut up.

Your missing the point.  The 4th amendment doesn't just protect you from being convicted based on an illegal search and seizure,  Its supposed to prevent the search from happening in the first place.  That is the purpose of requiring a warrant.


Even now liberals are definding the diminishing rights for the 'greater good' of the Almighty state.
 
Displayed 50 of 578 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report