Boston House searches

[Anthony K. S.]

If the police came to my door searching for a dangerous criminal, I would probably cooperate.

It's not that I like the idea of sacrificing my right to privacy, but for me, it would all come down to this :

What if I refused to let them in my house, and the police had to expend time arguing with me or getting a warrant ...

... and then I found out that the guy they were looking for killed somebody else before the police were able to catch up to him?

I know exactly what would happen after that. I would ask myself, over and over and over again :

If I had cooperated with the police instead of making them waste time arguing or getting a warrant, would they have been able to catch the guy in time to prevent that death?

And if I found out that the length of time the police spent dealing with me wasn't enough to make that difference, then I would be thinking :

There were probably a lot of people like me giving the police a hard time about searching their houses. If just a few of us had cooperated instead of arguing, would that have been enough to make the difference?

The truth is, I could find out all of the facts, go over everything in detail, and conclude that my actions weren't to blame for anything ... but there would always be that nagging doubt in my mind.

No matter what, I would always worry that it might have been different if I had only cooperated with the police when I had the chance.

Folks, you have to do what you feel is right. I'm just saying that if it was me, I would probably choose not to take the risk of being the straw that broke the camel's back.

[Greenday]

And let's face it, it's not like the people there didn't know what was going on. Everyone knew about the police chases and shootings and explosions. So it's not like they just randomly had cops coming up to their houses and they didn't know why.

[siead_lietrathua]

While I can see your point of view, this is exactly why, and how, liberties are watered down in the pursuit of some nebulous, undefined (and undefinable, let alone attainable) standard of safety.

no, see, wanting to catch a potential bomb wielding madman (where the chase has been flooding the news network) is in no way an undefined standard of safety. crazy bombing gun people is the very definition of unsafe, as far as i'm concerned.
i already said these events are fairly rare and isolated, and are not opening up any precedent for unwarranted police searches. it's not gonna happen every tuesday at 4:00 am.
people can talk about their rights or a free nation all they want, but living in a free nation also come with DUTIES, and part of that duty is compliance with the law, especially in circumstances like these.

[shroo]

I have a number of friends who live in Brighton and were forced to stay sheltered in place all of Friday.

I have one friend who lives in Watertown and she had no problem letting the State Officers in to make sure she and her family were safe.
She snapped a few pictures of them (because it was like a surreal dream to her), and it's not like they are meandering around poking through their personal belongings; the officers were focused and only in her house for a few minutes.

It's easier to say "I would do this or that" when not put in the middle of such a situation, when the safety of yourself, your loved ones, and your neighbors are at stake....well, who knows.

[TheHuckster]

While I can see your point of view, this is exactly why, and how, liberties are watered down in the pursuit of some nebulous, undefined (and undefinable, let alone attainable) standard of safety.

In the UK, certain laws were passed around access to the CCTV footage recorded by the forest of cameras. The laws were sold to the public as being exclusively against terrorists, yet once passed, they ended up being used to track people who were assumed to be falsifying their address so their kids could get into better schools, or for parking/moving violation citations.

As soon as you say that it's legal for the cops to come in to search for a criminal who's thought to be in the area, your home is technically open for general searches for jaywalkers. It may sound ridiculous, but laws passed in the aftermath of tragic events are often poorly written and misunderstood.

When you can show me a case where they abused this law to look for jaywalkers or other petty crimes, then your argument has merit. Otherwise it's just a strawman.

And this sort of ambiguity (which is ambiguous in the constitution, but this article explains that further laws have better defined what "unreasonable" means) is present in a lot of other laws. Look at "probable cause," which is about as ambiguous as you can get. Yet, while it has been abused in the past by unscrupulous officers, it is still an important clause that gives police a way to invoke their authority if they see something awry with an individual.

[draco664]

When you can show me a case where they abused this law to look for jaywalkers or other petty crimes, then your argument has merit. Otherwise it's just a strawman.

Sure. Here you go. This one has a happy ending, as a court found that the council using cctv to fine motorists went beyond the law and had to be proactive in tracking down their victims and pay them back.

But the point stands. When people accept governments reaching for more power, the government takes. You need to stand up and fight for them to stop.

And this sort of ambiguity (which is ambiguous in the constitution, but this article explains that further laws have better defined what "unreasonable" means) is present in a lot of other laws. Look at "probable cause," which is about as ambiguous as you can get. Yet, while it has been abused in the past by unscrupulous officers, it is still an important clause that gives police a way to invoke their authority if they see something awry with an individual.

And yet the cops were so sure that no one was actually in and danger that they requested that the fucking donut shops stay open during their declared martial law. If they really thought there was a danger, they'd have shut them down too.

Ten times as many people died in the London bombings, and we didn't cheer as cops stopped the city. Hell, in 2002 a sniper killed twice as many people in DC and the cops didn't have the balls to shut the city down. Four people died, and that's a tragedy, but in some US cities, that's a normal day's violence. But because it happens in a terrorist attack, suddenly people leave their common sense and self-respect at the door.

[Gravekeeper]

Sure.
And yet the cops were so sure that no one was actually in and danger that they requested that the fucking donut shops stay open during their declared martial law. If they really thought there was a danger, they'd have shut them down too.

"Law enforcement asked the chain to keep some restaurants open in locked-down communities to provide hot coffee and food to police and other emergency workers, including in Watertown, the focus of the search for the bombing suspect. Dunkin’ is providing its products to them for free."

Oh yes, what heartless monsters. You'd certainly be at the mercy of a wandering gunmen while sitting in a store full of SWAT officers. -.-

But because it happens in a terrorist attack, suddenly people leave their common sense and self-respect at the door.

What the hell are you even talking about? Common sense dictates you wouldn't wander the area that a gun wielding killer with explosives is in. I can't even comprehend how you think self respect factors into this situation.

[Hyena Dandy]

And yet the cops were so sure that no one was actually in and danger that they requested that the fucking donut shops stay open during their declared martial law. If they really thought there was a danger, they'd have shut them down too.

Yes, because there's nothing quite like having hungry people doing emergency work. That's always the best way to go.

[Jetfire]

Re: Donut shops. I wonder how many of the ones that stayed open were 24/7 locations that had staff working already when the lockdown went into place. The staff would be there already, so staying open and serving the thousands of people involved in the search, while providing a place for them to get a hot drink and a safe place to grab a moment to relax over a long day doesn't seem too bad.

[Panacea]

Ten times as many people died in the London bombings, and we didn't cheer as cops stopped the city. Hell, in 2002 a sniper killed twice as many people in DC and the cops didn't have the balls to shut the city down. Four people died, and that's a tragedy, but in some US cities, that's a normal day's violence. But because it happens in a terrorist attack, suddenly people leave their common sense and self-respect at the door.

London isn't the US. I have no idea how Londoners feel about their police. In the US, police are usually well respected by everyone but criminals and those who get a lot of traffic tickets or do dumb shit and get in trouble for it.

In the case of the DC sniper, the shootings were so random, and over such a large area (the District, Montgomery County in Maryland and Alexandria, VA) that it wasn't deemed at the time practical to go house to house. But a lot of things did get shut down during that situation. Police responded quickly to each shooting, setting up roadblocks, questioning drivers--traffic came to a standstill. The investigation went quickly from a morass of conflicting tips, and the shooters were arrested 5 days after the shootings started. Charles Moose, chief of the Montgomery County police department, was praised for his effective handling of the investigation that crossed many jurisdictional lines.

[Anthony K. S.]

suddenly people leave their common sense and self-respect at the door

Well, now, this is interesting.

Apparently, if you allow the police to search your house during a manhunt for a criminal who killed several people, it means that you have no self-respect.

I didn't know that.

Well, okay, then. I certainly don't want to lose my self-respect, so if the police ever do show up at my door for such a search, I will be sure to refuse to let them in.

I mean, sure, delaying the police like that might make it easier for the guy they're looking for to escape, or might mean he'll kill somebody else before the police catch up to him, but at least I'll be able to say that I still respect myself.

... Um, wait. No.

If I hindered the police during a manhunt, and then found out that my actions contributed to a criminal escaping or killing more people, that would probably make it harder for me to respect myself.

Huh.

Maybe I'm just funny that way.

[TheHuckster]

But the point stands. When people accept governments reaching for more power, the government takes. You need to stand up and fight for them to stop.

Even if it means an even greater immediate threat lurking in the very neighborhood you and your family inhabit can go even more ballistic than he already is and starts another rampage?

Ten times as many people died in the London bombings, and we didn't cheer as cops stopped the city.

Nobody cheered the "stopping of the city." They cheered their due diligence after they successfully apprehended the nutjob after nearly 19 hours of manhunting.

And I guarantee you if they hadn't done what they did the individual would have been caught sooner or later for sure... only it would be somewhere far away from Boston... and after more murders.

[insertNameHere]

Kind of funny apparently they are reporting that the nutjob was found OUTSIDE of the area they were searching and only after they lifted the shelter in place. Which allowed the guy who owned the boat to go outside notice the blood and call the police who got the suspect.

Hiding inside and waiting for police to violate your home looking for a guy wastes alot more time then just looking around to see if anything is out of place which is how he was caught. Now there is plenty of the talking heads on the radio saying the FBI knew his brother was radical and the Russian government warned them he was radical but really until we get the ability to arrest people for Precrime like in Minority report we unfortunately have to wait for psychos to take action and harm others before they are dealt with,

[Greenday]

Hiding inside and waiting for police to violate your home looking for a guy wastes alot more time then just looking around to see if anything is out of place which is how he was caught. Now there is plenty of the talking heads on the radio saying the FBI knew his brother was radical and the Russian government warned them he was radical but really until we get the ability to arrest people for Precrime like in Minority report we unfortunately have to wait for psychos to take action and harm others before they are dealt with,

"violate" You make it seem like the police were going into people's houses, trashing everything, and having sex with the furniture.

And the Russian government extremely dislikes Chechen people. So I could see how it'd be tough to see whether they are really terrorists or just Russian prejudice.

[Hyena Dandy]

Now there is plenty of the talking heads on the radio saying the FBI knew his brother was radical and the Russian government warned them he was radical but really until we get the ability to arrest people for Precrime like in Minority report we unfortunately have to wait for psychos to take action and harm others before they are dealt with,

The FBI suspected it, but couldn't really do anything about it, because you can't arrest someone on the grounds of "The Russian Government said so." The same thing that keeps us from being arrested on the grounds of "You're PROBABLY doing something" means that inevitably some will slip through the cracks.

That's not a condemnation of our system. Quite honestly, as sad as it is that lives are lost when someone slips through, far fewer lives are ruined there than would be if people were arrested for 'we think but don't know.'