Would you let police raid your house without a warrant?
Yes
8.9% (36)
8.9% (36)
No
55.4% (225)
55.4% (225)
Depends on circumstances
35.5% (144)
35.5% (144)
Want to vote? Register now or Sign Up with Facebook
Poll: Police State USA: Boston Area Raids

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

Huh. The OP is the same guy who posted the thread about strategies for taking down predator drones, and talked about how in "ten years or so," police will be using them to attack targets in the US. (Here)

I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.

I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.

So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.

Well to make this easy for all of you afraid of the cops seeing your drugs in the house when they search due to an actual legal reason.

a: put them in a closed space that is too small for a person to hide in.
b: make sure the container is not see through
c: now if the police are looking for a danger to the people or one of the reasons they can search your house for an armed person you have an argument in court that they had no right to search the area you had your stash as it could not have held a threat to the community or the officers

I really wish I lived in this America that everyone keeps saying existed in the good old days.

Lionsfan:

Ssshhhh.....don't you guys realize this is supposed to be an overreaction thread? We don't need no facts, or logic up in here, just make wildly inaccurate claims about the US and how it's probably the worse place to live in the world because we have secret police knocking on our doors at night and shooting people without fear of punishment

You may have a point, may I see you in the killing room?

You know it's nice being able to look back and call the police dumb for not looking right where the guy was hiding.
"Hey, we know there's a terrorist hiding in the area, mind if we make sure he's not in your crawl space?" seems to be a pretty reasonable request. If there wasn't a bombing a couple days before and they said something like that, I'd tell them to go away.

It's always interesting to see how some people react to news most people wouldn't bat an eye at. Reminds me of the time someone in one of my college classes said that Europe was a mock-democracy with secret police just because some Eruopean countries outlawed anti-semmetic hate speech.

EDIT:
On a side, it doesn't matter what the police see in your house. I'm pretty sure they can't do shit. Anything they find is evidence they gathered without a warrant or reasonable suspicion on you making it useless in court.

TheDrunkNinja:

ZeroMachine:
The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

The people posting do seem to have little scope of the actual situation. I'm surprised at the preference to ignore all the points you've brought up as one who was closer to the event than anyone else here.

I think what grates me the most is the egregious use of the term "police state". Seriously what the hell?

I know, I've never seen such outright ignorance on this forum. And that says a SHIT load.

Compatriot Block:
Huh. The OP is the same guy who posted the thread about strategies for taking down predator drones, and talked about how in "ten years or so," police will be using them to attack targets in the US. (Here)

I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.

I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.

So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.

Wait, fuck, it's that guy?

Paranoia, OP. Look it up. See a therapist.

Now, to all the people in this thread claiming "police state", "violation of rights", "no warrant no entry", I'm going to say one last thing and then once again I'll fade away into obscurity because oh my shit within three threads I joined I'm already pissed off by the outright ignorance of the Escapist yet again.

First, and let me make this easy for all to read:

WE, THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON/THE BOSTON AREA, FULLY SUPPORTED EVERYTHING OUR POLICE FORCES DID TO FIND THE BOMBERS.

Second, there was a citywide warrant issue to Watertown, making your "NO WARRANT" argument completely and utterly wrong and moot.

Third, police were giving supplies to families that were stuck in their homes for the duration of the manhunt. Funny how many people selectively ignore that.

Fourth, and I really can't state this enough:

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXACTS OF A SITUATION WITHOUT DOING YOUR GOD DAMNED RESEARCH AND LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. WE DON'T FEEL LIKE OUR RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE LIVED IN A POLICE STATE. WE WANTED THOSE BASTARDS CAUGHT. SO JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. YOU ARE NOT A BEACON OF FREEDOM. YOU ARE NOT AN ENLIGHTENED MIND SPEAKING TO SHEEPLE. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL THINGS CIVIL RIGHTS. YOU ARE A RANDOM PERSON ON A FORUM. STOP BEING AN IGNORANT ASS.

THE END

ZeroMachine:

Compatriot Block:
Huh. The OP is the same guy who posted the thread about strategies for taking down predator drones, and talked about how in "ten years or so," police will be using them to attack targets in the US. (Here)

I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.

I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.

So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.

Wait, fuck, it's that guy?

Paranoia, OP. Look it up. See a therapist.

Now, to all the people in this thread claiming "police state", "violation of rights", "no warrant no entry", I'm going to say one last thing and then once again I'll fade away into obscurity because oh my shit within three threads I joined I'm already pissed off by the outright ignorance of the Escapist yet again.

First, and let me make this easy for all to read:

WE, THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON/THE BOSTON AREA, FULLY SUPPORTED EVERYTHING OUR POLICE FORCES DID TO FIND THE BOMBERS.

Second, there was a citywide warrant issue to Watertown, making your "NO WARRANT" argument completely and utterly wrong and moot.

Third, police were giving supplies to families that were stuck in their homes for the duration of the manhunt. Funny how many people selectively ignore that.

Fourth, and I really can't state this enough:

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXACTS OF A SITUATION WITHOUT DOING YOUR GOD DAMNED RESEARCH AND LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. WE DON'T FEEL LIKE OUR RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE LIVED IN A POLICE STATE. WE WANTED THOSE BASTARDS CAUGHT. SO JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. YOU ARE NOT A BEACON OF FREEDOM. YOU ARE NOT AN ENLIGHTENED MIND SPEAKING TO SHEEPLE. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL THINGS CIVIL RIGHTS. YOU ARE A RANDOM PERSON ON A FORUM. STOP BEING AN IGNORANT ASS.

THE END

Just wanted to second this.

... Yeah, that's all I got. Nothing more to add. Just thought it was important enough to bare a repeat in posting.

Seriously guys, the more you know, deal with the real, the power is yours, and of course...

image

I'm done. Make up your own minds of who to listen to. You're all bright, young whippersnappers. You can figure it out.

ZeroMachine:
snip

Well it's nice to know you speak for the entire city of Boston, and that you fully support a police action which shut down a city, disrupting a million people, to find one guy who wasn't even in the area they were searching. Also, there is no such thing as a city wide warrant. When a judge signs off on a warrant, it must include a description of the specific place to be searched and the specific item(s) sought. I don't think you can just fill one out and put "Boston" and "Some guy..."

The fact is the governor asked the metro area to stay inside, the police asked to search houses, and for the most part people rolled over on command. It's not really necessary to declare martial law and go breaking down doors when people are so docile. Makes it look a lot less evil, but it is still the wrong thing to do. I don't think you realize this is a very disturbing precedent to set. So you go ahead and be angry and toss the word ignorant around like a football during practice. I hope someday you'll realize that what makes this country great is the principles it was founded on.

Liberty is not something to be taken lightly or brushed aside without a second thought because there might be a bad guy out there somewhere.

ZeroMachine:

TheDrunkNinja:

ZeroMachine:
The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

The people posting do seem to have little scope of the actual situation. I'm surprised at the preference to ignore all the points you've brought up as one who was closer to the event than anyone else here.

I think what grates me the most is the egregious use of the term "police state". Seriously what the hell?

I know, I've never seen such outright ignorance on this forum. And that says a SHIT load.

Compatriot Block:
Huh. The OP is the same guy who posted the thread about strategies for taking down predator drones, and talked about how in "ten years or so," police will be using them to attack targets in the US. (Here)

I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.

I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.

So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.

Wait, fuck, it's that guy?

Paranoia, OP. Look it up. See a therapist.

Now, to all the people in this thread claiming "police state", "violation of rights", "no warrant no entry", I'm going to say one last thing and then once again I'll fade away into obscurity because oh my shit within three threads I joined I'm already pissed off by the outright ignorance of the Escapist yet again.

First, and let me make this easy for all to read:

WE, THE CITIZENS OF BOSTON/THE BOSTON AREA, FULLY SUPPORTED EVERYTHING OUR POLICE FORCES DID TO FIND THE BOMBERS.

Second, there was a citywide warrant issue to Watertown, making your "NO WARRANT" argument completely and utterly wrong and moot.

Third, police were giving supplies to families that were stuck in their homes for the duration of the manhunt. Funny how many people selectively ignore that.

Fourth, and I really can't state this enough:

STOP ACTING LIKE YOU UNDERSTAND THE EXACTS OF A SITUATION WITHOUT DOING YOUR GOD DAMNED RESEARCH AND LISTENING TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. WE DON'T FEEL LIKE OUR RIGHTS WERE VIOLATED. WE DON'T FEEL THAT WE LIVED IN A POLICE STATE. WE WANTED THOSE BASTARDS CAUGHT. SO JUST SHUT UP AND LISTEN TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE THERE. YOU ARE NOT A BEACON OF FREEDOM. YOU ARE NOT AN ENLIGHTENED MIND SPEAKING TO SHEEPLE. YOU ARE NOT AN EXPERT ON ALL THINGS CIVIL RIGHTS. YOU ARE A RANDOM PERSON ON A FORUM. STOP BEING AN IGNORANT ASS.

THE END

Hear, hear!

As a New Englander with family in the Boston area, not only did I support the manhunt to find these bastards but my relations on scene did too. This bull about the USA being a police state are nothing more then paranoid delusions the OP is fooling him or herself with.

Compatriot Block:
Huh. The OP is the same guy who posted the thread about strategies for taking down predator drones, and talked about how in "ten years or so," police will be using them to attack targets in the US. (Here)

I think you're more than a little paranoid, and that the title of this thread is more than a little sensationalist.

I'm completely in support of the right to refuse search without a warrant, but if somebody doesn't refuse it, the cops aren't doing anything illegal. And if there was illegal searching done, than the victims will bring charges against the appropriate people.

So no, it is not in any way indicative of a police state.

he is? ah explains alot then. OP i hear tin foil hats will clear that drone worry issue right up for you

wombat_of_war:

he is? ah explains alot then. OP i hear tin foil hats will clear that drone worry issue right up for you

The problem with tin foil hats is that they actually increase the intensity of brain signals to the outside world http://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boost-receptivity-to-government-signals/

Edit: I also think this is appropriate
http://blogs.wickedlocal.com/brookline/files/2013/04/BrooklinePoliceWithMilk_20131.jpg

[Assuming no warrant] If they asked politely -(in that given the circumstances, it was an actual question. "Please" would be optional), but if they were rude and just barged in, I would tell them GTFO. Would I be concerned about being arrested? No. Would I be concerned about receiving a police beating? No. I would be concerned how I'd be spending the money from from the king sized lawsuit I'd level against them.

KeyMaster45:

Product Placement:
Finally, the idea of charging the guy with using weapons of mass destruction (which I've always associated with Nuclear weaponry or of similar scale) is also a bit odd in my books.

The legal definition of a WMD is not the same as the popular definition created by the media. I know I was pretty confused at that charge as well; then I ran across this Wired article, http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2013/04/tsarnaev-charged/ .

It's not only popularized by the media. Politicians have been referring to mass scale destructive weapons like nuclear and chemical weapons as WMD, as well. Hell, Bush's solitary justification for going to war with Iraq was to deny Saddam from owning WMD's. I'm pretty sure that nobody was thinking about hand grenades, at the time.

Historically, the english language has always been contolled by the definition that the public give to the word. In most cases, the popular definition IS the legal definition.

Just my two cents and I'll shut up about it now.

Well yeah, if there was a criminal suspected to be hiding in my house while I wasn't there, I'd let the police have a look around. Doesn't mean they can't be quick and efficient about it and not cordon off the place.

Here's the thing, the last time they'd seen him before catching him there was a shootout, he was a bomber, it's entirely plausible that he'd planted more or had broken into a house and taken hostages.

As cool and edgy as it is to pretend that the police are morally corrupt thugs with a hero complex when you're whole city is locked down because a fleeing potentially armed murderer is running for his life it's generally a good idea to let the people trying to catch him actually look for him.

Gottesstrafe:

Aramis Night:

Ryotknife:

I have a feeling that the whole "kill the dog" policy is due with the stories ive been hearing a lot lately of drug dealers training dogs to attack police so that when they raid his home he can use his dog as a distraction while he runs away.

Which is a really scummy thing to do, but hey, drug dealers.

It is not an appropriate justification for killing a dog. Subduing a dog isn't difficult for a single grown man with no weapons. We have tranquilizers. In light of that i'm having a hard time seeing how we justify cops having non-tranquilizer guns at all.

1. Against humans, tranquilizers require an estimation of weight. It would be impractical to carry, as you would usually not have time to accurately estimate weight, and you would have to carry several different dosages to adjust for different weights. Too little a dosage would have little to no effect, too high a dosage could cause respiratory collapse and kill people, and in some cases the tranquilizing agent can induce rage and make apprehension all the more difficult.

2. Nobody is going to be intimidated into surrendering by tranquilizer guns.

3. Tranquilizer darts lack stopping power and require time to take effect. They're also either bolt or break action, making them even more impractical in a firefight.

4. Tranquilizer guns (pistols and rifles) have lower effective ranges compared to their more lethal counterparts, not to mention that tranquilizer darts aren't very aerodynamic to begin with.

Aramis Night:
Subduing a dog isn't difficult for a single grown man with no weapons.

Going to need a citation on that. I've seen plenty of photos of people with their faces mauled off by pit bull terriers, but not many of people effortlessly subduing one empty handed, especially one bearing down on them rapidly. Unless of course you're suggesting that every officer be issued a standard-issue pets-only tranquilizer gun on the off-chance that any building they storm happens to include domesticated animals, in which case I'll just reaffirm the impracticality of it. A paintball gun loaded with CS pellets would probably be more effective and flexible, something that's already in their arsenal.

Call me speciesist, but I'd rather read in the morning paper that a drug dealer's attack dog was killed during an arrest than an officer or civilian was horribly maimed/killed because the officers on the scene were terrified of animal abuse allegations being leveled against them.

Silly me. Here i was thinking that police were supposed to be apprehending criminals, not killing them outright. It is true that tranquilizers run the risk of not being effective vs weight class, but if your using a gun on a person small enough to easily subdue physically, than your doing it wrong. Concerning yourself with possibly OD'ing a perp, doesn't make much sense when your comparing it to a weapon that is specifically designed to kill people. The point of police is to get criminal's into a court of law for their crimes, not dispense street justice.

As for intimidation, I don't know too many people who are all that crazy about getting injection's the normal way. Fear of needles is pretty common, let alone fear of them being fired at you at high velocity. That and it would remove the whole romantic notion that some people have about going out in a blaze of glory vs. the cops if it would still end with them in a cage facing trial as opposed to dead and with no further concerns. People fear life in prison far more in most cases.

Most firefights dont take place over long ranges anyway. They are more likely to happen in tight spaces and short ranges. Police are not engaging in battlefield war time fighting. It is not as though i'm advocating for only the use of tranquilizer darts, just replacing the guns with them. They still have many other non-lethal weapon's at their disposal. we have tasers, stun guns, gas, batons. With all these options there is no good reason for guns to be a part of the arsenal.

xDarc:

Liberty is not something to be taken lightly or brushed aside without a second thought because there might be a bad guy out there somewhere.

It must be nice to live in a fantasy world capable of sustaining these delusions. In reality liberty will always lose out to security, or even a loaf of bread if times are dire enough. As for America being a police state, were it furnished with a people's militia with teeth the attacks would never have happened.

Boris Goodenough:

wombat_of_war:

he is? ah explains alot then. OP i hear tin foil hats will clear that drone worry issue right up for you

The problem with tin foil hats is that they actually increase the intensity of brain signals to the outside world http://www.howtogeek.com/114037/researchers-prove-tin-foil-hats-boost-receptivity-to-government-signals/

Edit: I also think this is appropriate
image

I lol'd.

I never, ever type that, on principle alone. But I fuckin' lol'd.

Aramis Night:
Silly me. Here i was thinking that police were supposed to be apprehending criminals, not killing them outright. It is true that tranquilizers run the risk of not being effective vs weight class, but if your using a gun on a person small enough to easily subdue physically, than your doing it wrong. Concerning yourself with possibly OD'ing a perp, doesn't make much sense when your comparing it to a weapon that is specifically designed to kill people. The point of police is to get criminal's into a court of law for their crimes, not dispense street justice.

As for intimidation, I don't know too many people who are all that crazy about getting injection's the normal way. Fear of needles is pretty common, let alone fear of them being fired at you at high velocity. That and it would remove the whole romantic notion that some people have about going out in a blaze of glory vs. the cops if it would still end with them in a cage facing trial as opposed to dead and with no further concerns. People fear life in prison far more in most cases.

Most firefights dont take place over long ranges anyway. They are more likely to happen in tight spaces and short ranges. Police are not engaging in battlefield war time fighting. It is not as though i'm advocating for only the use of tranquilizer darts, just replacing the guns with them. They still have many other non-lethal weapon's at their disposal. we have tasers, stun guns, gas, batons. With all these options there is no good reason for guns to be a part of the arsenal.

Unfortunately (as yet) that won't work. No police force has replaced firearms with tranquilisers. There are police forces that don't have firearms as general issue, though.

Currently tranquiliser guns aren't a replacement for firearms. Police are only supposed to use their guns as a last resort, when life is under immediate threat. Under those circumstances you need to bring the target down right now, that's why once police officers start firing, they don't stop.

There's "don't shoot" and there's "kill", with little in between. Now, you can certainly argue that police officers move from "don't shoot" to "kill" too easily, but that's another matter.

Lionsfan:

erttheking:
You know, a lot of people from Boston are praising the way in which the police acted.

And as someone who lives in America, no it is not an Orwellian state, thank you very much.

Fleischer:

BeerTent:
This is why I'd never go to the US.

Suit yourself. I've lived most of my life in United States, but my wife and I have lived in England, Denmark, and Argentina. All told, you need to go to a place and live there to be even a small judge of that nation.

BeerTent:
No warrant, no entry. I'm all for cooperating, but there's such a thing as violating my rights.

Incorrect. Law enforcement needs a warrant in most circumstances. I'll give you an example:

-You are pulled over. As the officer walks towards your car, he hears a banging and what appears to be muffled yelling. The officer sees that you are the only visible occupant of the vehicle. At that point, the officer has permission, due to the possibility of someone being in danger - aka the possible kidnapped person.

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

Warrantless searches and seizures are permitted in circumstances of probable cause, extreme urgency, and/or danger to the public. Just like any case of alleged police misconduct, the wronged party can take the police to court if they feel exigent circumstance did not exist in their case.

It's hardly a police state when you can take the police to court.

ZeroMachine:

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

Warrantless searches and seizures are permitted in circumstances of probable cause, extreme urgency, and/or danger to the public. Just like any case of alleged police misconduct, the wronged party can take the police to court if they feel exigent circumstance did not exist in their case.

It's hardly a police state when you can take the police to court.

The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

TheDrunkNinja:

ZeroMachine:
The sad thing is, even though this is probably the most intelligent and fact driven post in the entire thread, my own posts included, it'll probably fall on deaf ears.

A valiant attempt, though, my friend.

The people posting do seem to have little scope of the actual situation. I'm surprised at the preference to ignore all the points you've brought up as one who was closer to the event than anyone else here.

I think what grates me the most is the egregious use of the term "police state". Seriously what the hell?

Ssshhhh.....don't you guys realize this is supposed to be an overreaction thread? We don't need no facts, or logic up in here, just make wildly inaccurate claims about the US and how it's probably the worse place to live in the world because we have secret police knocking on our doors at night and shooting people without fear of punishment

Shit, I didn't get that memo. I was about to post a response filled with hatred, flaming any who dare read it, but it's so damn nice outside...

Maybe if the raid was staged better... but it doesn't seem like they're thinking about that in their rush to find a suspect...

thaluikhain:

Aramis Night:
Silly me. Here i was thinking that police were supposed to be apprehending criminals, not killing them outright. It is true that tranquilizers run the risk of not being effective vs weight class, but if your using a gun on a person small enough to easily subdue physically, than your doing it wrong. Concerning yourself with possibly OD'ing a perp, doesn't make much sense when your comparing it to a weapon that is specifically designed to kill people. The point of police is to get criminal's into a court of law for their crimes, not dispense street justice.

As for intimidation, I don't know too many people who are all that crazy about getting injection's the normal way. Fear of needles is pretty common, let alone fear of them being fired at you at high velocity. That and it would remove the whole romantic notion that some people have about going out in a blaze of glory vs. the cops if it would still end with them in a cage facing trial as opposed to dead and with no further concerns. People fear life in prison far more in most cases.

Most firefights dont take place over long ranges anyway. They are more likely to happen in tight spaces and short ranges. Police are not engaging in battlefield war time fighting. It is not as though i'm advocating for only the use of tranquilizer darts, just replacing the guns with them. They still have many other non-lethal weapon's at their disposal. we have tasers, stun guns, gas, batons. With all these options there is no good reason for guns to be a part of the arsenal.

Unfortunately (as yet) that won't work. No police force has replaced firearms with tranquilisers. There are police forces that don't have firearms as general issue, though.

Currently tranquiliser guns aren't a replacement for firearms. Police are only supposed to use their guns as a last resort, when life is under immediate threat. Under those circumstances you need to bring the target down right now, that's why once police officers start firing, they don't stop.

There's "don't shoot" and there's "kill", with little in between. Now, you can certainly argue that police officers move from "don't shoot" to "kill" too easily, but that's another matter.

Tranquilizer guns aren't a replacement because no police force has done it before? And because police like to paint every scenario in terms of it being life threatening. Therefore, guns!?

If you sign up to be a cop, you should understand that your putting yourself in harms way. If you sign up for a dangerous job where death is an inherent occupational hazard, that is your choice. Your safety should becomes a secondary concern. When you sign up to kill other people as a matter of course for a paycheck, i can't sympathize. Maybe if the job was more protect and serve, and less about harassing citizens who are harming no one to get revenue for their municipality, while acting like just another gang, I'd feel a little differently. It has just become a little too obvious that cops are the last people who should have guns. I feel safer around drug addicts than i do cops and i don't even do drugs.

Aramis Night:
Tranquilizer guns aren't a replacement because no police force has done it before? And because police like to paint every scenario in terms of it being life threatening. Therefore, guns!?

I mean that nowhere has been able to develop tranquilisers that replace firearms. They aren't (as yet) available.

And of course not every scenario is life threatening. But when it isn't, you don't shoot people with anything, dart or bullets or baton rounds or anything else. Less lethal weapons are still weapons, you don't use them lightly. There are to only be employed when people are in danger. They are (in certain circumstances) preferable to using bullets, but not to be used in circumstances where it is inappropriate to use bullets.

Of course, you have problems with police being very cavalier with how they use them, though.

Aramis Night:
If you sign up to be a cop, you should understand that your putting yourself in harms way. If you sign up for a dangerous job where death is an inherent occupational hazard, that is your choice. Your safety should becomes a secondary concern. When you sign up to kill other people as a matter of course for a paycheck, i can't sympathize. Maybe if the job was more protect and serve, and less about harassing citizens who are harming no one to get revenue for their municipality, while acting like just another gang, I'd feel a little differently. It has just become a little too obvious that cops are the last people who should have guns. I feel safer around drug addicts than i do cops and i don't even do drugs.

Ah, well, that's a problem with police culture. It's an extremely serious, but separate issue.

seveneddy:
The fear of those americans is just great - they don't just fear the terrorism... they fear their own police.

Why would you say "I have nothing to hide - so they can search my home"? because you fear the cops.
Otherwise you would think "I have nothing to hide - so they don't need to search my home"

You know the terrorist is not in your house. So why let them search your house? They are waisting their and your time if they look in your house.

This is the most sense i've seen someone with so little posts make. People defending police knocking on your door and screaming "GET OUT GET OUT" while pointing assault rifles in your face are deluded into thinking that's ok. Simply knocking and asking if they can search, nicely would have done the same thing.

Here are two ways it can go down that wouldn't end up making a thread like this.

*knocks* Hello sir/madam. We're searching houses because of the recent bombings, may we come in?

If yes:

Searches house, finds nothing, leaves. Owner is happy, police haven't stepped on their rights.

If no:

Police watches house, gets warrant. If the owner still say's no they burst in, legally. If the owner goes "fair enough, you have a warrant, have at it" the owner is still happy, because the police haven't stepped on their rights.

Notice how both these options don't let the terrorist get away, nor do they step on your rights. Stand up for them.

Dogstile:

seveneddy:
The fear of those americans is just great - they don't just fear the terrorism... they fear their own police.

Why would you say "I have nothing to hide - so they can search my home"? because you fear the cops.
Otherwise you would think "I have nothing to hide - so they don't need to search my home"

You know the terrorist is not in your house. So why let them search your house? They are waisting their and your time if they look in your house.

This is the most sense i've seen someone with so little posts make. People defending police knocking on your door and screaming "GET OUT GET OUT" while pointing assault rifles in your face are deluded into thinking that's ok. Simply knocking and asking if they can search, nicely would have done the same thing.

Here are two ways it can go down that wouldn't end up making a thread like this.

*knocks* Hello sir/madam. We're searching houses because of the recent bombings, may we come in?

If yes:

Searches house, finds nothing, leaves. Owner is happy, police haven't stepped on their rights.

If no:

Police watches house, gets warrant. If the owner still say's no they burst in, legally. If the owner goes "fair enough, you have a warrant, have at it" the owner is still happy, because the police haven't stepped on their rights.

Notice how both these options don't let the terrorist get away, nor do they step on your rights. Stand up for them.

It's great to see that, when hunting for someone believed to be armed, dangerous, and capable of either taking hostages or harming more people either with explosives or through other means, the police must maintain an air of complete calm and a lack of any alertness or caution. Why believe that the person responsible for multiple explosives as well as the murder of a police officer is not on any of the properties and act accordingly in reasonable anticipation of more fighting? It's not like they should worry that another firefight might start up when they find him, or care about their own safety and that of the people around them, making the people whose homes they're asking to search feel as though their is absolutely no pressure on them to say yes is the most important thing.

Tell you what, find someone who said no and still had their home searched, or someone who said yes but felt like they were being threatened to do so, then you might have something, because everyone so far from Boston or who knows people from Boston seems to be appreciative of the police's response. But what the fuck do they know, it's not like it was their (or their friends'/families') rights supposedly being trampled, meaning that they're opinion is much more important on the matter than everyone else's.

LifeCharacter:

Dogstile:
snip

It's great to see that, when hunting for someone believed to be armed, dangerous, and capable of either taking hostages or harming more people either with explosives or through other means, the police must maintain an air of complete calm and a lack of any alertness or caution. Why believe that the person responsible for multiple explosives as well as the murder of a police officer is not on any of the properties and act accordingly in reasonable anticipation of more fighting? It's not like they should worry that another firefight might start up when they find him, or care about their own safety and that of the people around them, making the people whose homes they're asking to search feel as though their is absolutely no pressure on them to say yes is the most important thing.

Tell you what, find someone who said no and still had their home searched, or someone who said yes but felt like they were being threatened to do so, then you might have something, because everyone so far from Boston or who knows people from Boston seems to be appreciative of the police's response. But what the fuck do they know, it's not like it was their (or their friends'/families') rights supposedly being trampled, meaning that they're opinion is much more important on the matter than everyone else's.

Thats what I said. Nobody can say something against the police. They are all patriots and if they say something against the police they are criminals. Never had it a Terrorist so easy...

It's simple in america - even thought it wasn't always that simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

btw. it's a really stupid idear to shoot at somebody that is known to build bombs...

seveneddy:

LifeCharacter:

Dogstile:
snip

It's great to see that, when hunting for someone believed to be armed, dangerous, and capable of either taking hostages or harming more people either with explosives or through other means, the police must maintain an air of complete calm and a lack of any alertness or caution. Why believe that the person responsible for multiple explosives as well as the murder of a police officer is not on any of the properties and act accordingly in reasonable anticipation of more fighting? It's not like they should worry that another firefight might start up when they find him, or care about their own safety and that of the people around them, making the people whose homes they're asking to search feel as though their is absolutely no pressure on them to say yes is the most important thing.

Tell you what, find someone who said no and still had their home searched, or someone who said yes but felt like they were being threatened to do so, then you might have something, because everyone so far from Boston or who knows people from Boston seems to be appreciative of the police's response. But what the fuck do they know, it's not like it was their (or their friends'/families') rights supposedly being trampled, meaning that they're opinion is much more important on the matter than everyone else's.

Thats what I said. Nobody can say something against the police. They are all patriots and if they say something against the police they are criminals. Never had it a Terrorist so easy...

It's simple in america - even thought it wasn't always that simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

btw. it's a really stupid idear to shoot at somebody that is known to build bombs...

You know, I have to say that as an American, police are not viewed as this infallible military police force. My family has had to deal with the police multiple times, and every time they were very calm, polite, and professional.

erttheking:

seveneddy:

LifeCharacter:

It's great to see that, when hunting for someone believed to be armed, dangerous, and capable of either taking hostages or harming more people either with explosives or through other means, the police must maintain an air of complete calm and a lack of any alertness or caution. Why believe that the person responsible for multiple explosives as well as the murder of a police officer is not on any of the properties and act accordingly in reasonable anticipation of more fighting? It's not like they should worry that another firefight might start up when they find him, or care about their own safety and that of the people around them, making the people whose homes they're asking to search feel as though their is absolutely no pressure on them to say yes is the most important thing.

Tell you what, find someone who said no and still had their home searched, or someone who said yes but felt like they were being threatened to do so, then you might have something, because everyone so far from Boston or who knows people from Boston seems to be appreciative of the police's response. But what the fuck do they know, it's not like it was their (or their friends'/families') rights supposedly being trampled, meaning that they're opinion is much more important on the matter than everyone else's.

Thats what I said. Nobody can say something against the police. They are all patriots and if they say something against the police they are criminals. Never had it a Terrorist so easy...

It's simple in america - even thought it wasn't always that simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

btw. it's a really stupid idear to shoot at somebody that is known to build bombs...

You know, I have to say that as an American, police are not viewed as this infallible military police force. My family has had to deal with the police multiple times, and every time they were very calm, polite, and professional.

I've never had a problem with the police, and I don't really believe that these people felt threatened or intimidated into letting the police check their homes. Nor do I believe that is what the person who the last person quoted was saying.

This isn't simply a matter of having different ideals. You can have a different mindset in America. You can believe in different things. What those two men did was not just "knowing how to build a bomb", it was using their knowledge to kill, for no other reason than to kill.

Further, as several people have pointed out. There is a legal work around for just this sort of thing which a lot of you seem to be conveniently ignoring or outright refusing to acknowledge.

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

Not everything is a conspiracy, the government boogy man is not out to get you, and for the love of god, if you honestly believe that every man, and woman in the army, police, CIA, FBI, DHS, or whatever else have you, would actually help with a betrayal of the citizens of the US. Then you have a serious problem, and you need to see someone for help.

seveneddy:
Thats what I said. Nobody can say something against the police. They are all patriots and if they say something against the police they are criminals. Never had it a Terrorist so easy...

It's simple in america - even thought it wasn't always that simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Where exactly do you live that you have this perception of American's perception of the police, because it's pretty inaccurate and whoever or whatever you got it from should probably be avoided from now on. When they're calm and professional (some of us) respect them as you kind of should, but when they fuck up we're not exactly tame in our critique of them.

btw. it's a really stupid idear to shoot at somebody that is known to build bombs...

Right, they should just let him shoot at them, because fuck the police's lives.

Cecilo:

erttheking:

seveneddy:

Thats what I said. Nobody can say something against the police. They are all patriots and if they say something against the police they are criminals. Never had it a Terrorist so easy...

It's simple in america - even thought it wasn't always that simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

btw. it's a really stupid idear to shoot at somebody that is known to build bombs...

You know, I have to say that as an American, police are not viewed as this infallible military police force. My family has had to deal with the police multiple times, and every time they were very calm, polite, and professional.

I've never had a problem with the police, and I don't really believe that these people felt threatened or intimidated into letting the police check their homes. Nor do I believe that is what the person who the last person quoted was saying.

This isn't simply a matter of having different ideals. You can have a different mindset in America. You can believe in different things. What those two men did was not just "knowing how to build a bomb", it was using their knowledge to kill, for no other reason than to kill.

Further, as several people have pointed out. There is a legal work around for just this sort of thing which a lot of you seem to be conveniently ignoring or outright refusing to acknowledge.

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

Not everything is a conspiracy, the government boogy man is not out to get you, and for the love of god, if you honestly believe that every man, and woman in the army, police, CIA, FBI, DHS, or whatever else have you, would actually help with a betrayal of the citizens of the US. Then you have a serious problem, and you need to see someone for help.

Yeah. Come to think of it, aren't the police always blamed for just about everything that goes wrong in America? If a kid aims a fake but real looking gun at an officer and he shoots him, then the officer should've tried to take him down non-lethally. If someone goes on a rampage and the officer tries to get the guy to stand down and someone gets shot, he should've just killed him. If someone is biting, kicking and screaming while an officer tries to make an arrest and he has to use mace, then it's brutality. Let's face it, being a cop is a shitty job, no matter what you do, so many people are determined to hate you.

Really depends on the attitude and words used by the officer. If it's merely a request with no implied punishment for answering 'no'. Then Id let them right into my house. I don't mind. It's usually quicker for everyone, just to let them get on with their jobs.
If the officer has a threatening demeanour then there's no way I'm letting in without a warrant. I'm not inclined to enjoy the company of angry men with assault weapons.

LifeCharacter:

seveneddy:
Thats what I said. Nobody can say something against the police. They are all patriots and if they say something against the police they are criminals. Never had it a Terrorist so easy...

It's simple in america - even thought it wasn't always that simple.

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
- Benjamin Franklin

Where exactly do you live that you have this perception of American's perception of the police, because it's pretty inaccurate and whoever or whatever you got it from should probably be avoided form now on. When they're calm and professional (some of us) respect them as you kind of should, but when they fuck up we're not exactly tame in our critique of them.

btw. it's a really stupid idear to shoot at somebody that is known to build bombs...

Right, they should just let him shoot at them, because fuck the police's lives.

From Switzerland - pretty much every single men in that county has a machine gun. Never heard of a story where the police shot an unarmed man. Even though they have to assume that he could have a machine gun - or any other weapon. Guns, knives, samurai swords... everything legal in Switzerland. And we have some serious criminals in our country - not just white-collar crime... human trafficking is big in Switzerland...

And it's a stupid idear to shoot at somebody who builds bombs because he could wear a bomb at the moment... especially if he knows that the cops are searching for him... that I had to explain that......

We had about 69 deaths due to domestic terrorism in 2012. We also had around 400 "justified" homicides by police in the same year. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

Aramis Night:
We had about 69 deaths due to domestic terrorism in 2012. We also had around 400 "justified" homicides by police in the same year. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

And I will still argue that this does not a police state make. In a true police state you would be told the police do no wrong, to go shut up, or have your family find your corpse strung up a pole.

Where as we in the US have records of each homicide. It is not the Police acting out of turn, they are not secret police, and they do not kill people because they have orders from higher ups to do so.

LifeCharacter:

Dogstile:

seveneddy:
The fear of those americans is just great - they don't just fear the terrorism... they fear their own police.

Why would you say "I have nothing to hide - so they can search my home"? because you fear the cops.
Otherwise you would think "I have nothing to hide - so they don't need to search my home"

You know the terrorist is not in your house. So why let them search your house? They are waisting their and your time if they look in your house.

This is the most sense i've seen someone with so little posts make. People defending police knocking on your door and screaming "GET OUT GET OUT" while pointing assault rifles in your face are deluded into thinking that's ok. Simply knocking and asking if they can search, nicely would have done the same thing.

Here are two ways it can go down that wouldn't end up making a thread like this.

*knocks* Hello sir/madam. We're searching houses because of the recent bombings, may we come in?

If yes:

Searches house, finds nothing, leaves. Owner is happy, police haven't stepped on their rights.

If no:

Police watches house, gets warrant. If the owner still say's no they burst in, legally. If the owner goes "fair enough, you have a warrant, have at it" the owner is still happy, because the police haven't stepped on their rights.

Notice how both these options don't let the terrorist get away, nor do they step on your rights. Stand up for them.

It's great to see that, when hunting for someone believed to be armed, dangerous, and capable of either taking hostages or harming more people either with explosives or through other means, the police must maintain an air of complete calm and a lack of any alertness or caution. Why believe that the person responsible for multiple explosives as well as the murder of a police officer is not on any of the properties and act accordingly in reasonable anticipation of more fighting? It's not like they should worry that another firefight might start up when they find him, or care about their own safety and that of the people around them, making the people whose homes they're asking to search feel as though their is absolutely no pressure on them to say yes is the most important thing.

Tell you what, find someone who said no and still had their home searched, or someone who said yes but felt like they were being threatened to do so, then you might have something, because everyone so far from Boston or who knows people from Boston seems to be appreciative of the police's response. But what the fuck do they know, it's not like it was their (or their friends'/families') rights supposedly being trampled, meaning that they're opinion is much more important on the matter than everyone else's.

Did you read the first page of the thread? You clearly didn't, because someone posted a fucking video showing that a guy opened the door, was faced with assault rifles and told to get out.

That's a raid without a warrant and is still illegal.

I honestly wouldnt care, they didnt throw down the door or anything, if all I have to do is open the door and raise my arms then I dont see the problem. Me acting all like "I know my rights, you need a warrant" on them would be as time wasting for me as it would be for them.

I know that it sucks and can be annoying but you know what is also annoying? Having a guy that planted a bomb in a public place still hiding somewhere in the city. Until the whole thing is over just accept that everything will be a little tense for a while, for you and for the cops.

Cecilo:

Aramis Night:
We had about 69 deaths due to domestic terrorism in 2012. We also had around 400 "justified" homicides by police in the same year. Feel free to draw your own conclusions.

And I will still argue that this does not a police state make. In a true police state you would be told the police do no wrong, to go shut up, or have your family find your corpse strung up a pole.

Where as we in the US have records of each homicide. It is not the Police acting out of turn, they are not secret police, and they do not kill people because they have orders from higher ups to do so.

I never stated anything about a police state. Here if you point out police misconduct, you won't be killed. Harassed perhaps, but more likely ignored. I didn't make any claims of secret police. It's not likely i would be able to reference a years death toll if that was the case. Our police kill citizens right out in the open. And its perfectly legal for them to do so. They don't need orders from higher up for that. Just personal volition and a pretense.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked