|
| Posted by: Nerveclinic
- Leader [05047110] Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 11:58
I am curious what everyone thinks when they look at the police tactics in this video searching the homes of innocent people in Boston and how they treat innocent people leaving their homes.
To comment please watch at least 3-4 minutes of the video.
link
|
| | | 1 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 12:13
|
Discomforting.
Less so than having the Boston Marathon bombing suspect hiding someplace in your neighborhood? I don't know.
No easy answer.
|
|
| | | 2 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 12:39
|
A classic tradeoff. I would be extremely uncomfortable if these tactics were being used for non-immediate public safety reasons. But by and large, the police seem to have gotten it right. And it isn't clear that what was done was "illegal" in any case.
|
|
| | | 3 | Seattle Zen
ID: 3310162612
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 12:57
|
Expect lawsuits and settlements by the police. I cannot agree that the "police got it right".
|
|
| | | 4 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 13:04
|
They'll be very few lawsuits and I doubt they'll be any settlements.
|
|
| | | 5 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 13:06
|
I agree Farn--obviously we still have yet to see what damage, if any, the police caused (upon which a suit would be built).
But I really doubt the police would settle. I think any suits would be widely publicized, in fact.
|
|
| | | 6 | Farn
Leader
ID: 451044109
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 13:10
|
Not only would a person be publicly chastised but I'd say there's a fair chance the police could argue some form of "clear and present" danger to have a case dismissed. And it would be a fair argument considering the suspect was found hiding in a boat in a backyard.
|
|
| | | 7 | Tree
ID: 47311239
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 13:26
|
it sucks, and it's terrifying.
and if a bomb had gone off in the neighborhood, people would have said the police weren't doing enough.
it's really a no win situation, and balancing some rights with certain public safety is a difficult one.
i am also not sure you'll see too many lawsuits. this is a working class town - and i think the people were ok with being inconvenienced a little in a situation such as this.
|
|
| | | 8 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 14:26
|
That looks ridiculous but we do not have the entire story. Did the household consent to the search or were they storming homes without consent? It is one thing to consent to a search. Totally another thing for the gestapo to storm your house without consent or a search warrant. If there was no consent it is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment and a lawsuit would not be out of the question. Police are only able to search without consent if there is clear and present danger (shots fired, screams from within, etc...).
From a story I found it seems the searches were only done after obtaining consent: "Over and over, they knocked on doors and asked to search inside.
“Most of the time ... it was, ‘Yeah, please come in, please check it out.’ People were extremely helpful. They really wanted that extra sense of security that nobody was in their house.” Along the way, he said they met a lot of “very scared people.”
When a homeowner said there was no need to search, they looked hard at the individual and situation to make sure the person wasn’t acting under duress, that the suspect wasn’t inside."
|
|
| | | 9 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 14:48
|
I don't think that video tells the whole picture of that day.
I've talked to a few friends in the boston area. The general word up there is nothing but praise for how the police handled it. It was recommended that citizens stay inside, but those who did not were not accosted by police or harassed. They were treated with respect and went about their normal lives.
To play an extreme devil's advocate about that video - how do we even know it has anything to do with the search? There's not time/date stamp. It could be a completely unrelated incident from a different time.
Honestly I do believe its from that day but there are still a lot of questions to ask that 1 video does not answer - were all houses and occupants treated this way? Was there a particular reason this house and occupants were so thoroughly investigated? Perhaps its somebody with a known connection to them or there was a call made about this house specifically.
A) w/out any context outside of what we know was going on that day, that video is not even all that bad
B) with more context from talking to friends in the region, I think the police did a fine job.
Is this the kind of search and procedure that can be abusive and wrong? Absolutely. Its exactly the kind of thing that would be abused if used more often.
But in this particular case I don't have a problem with what happened in Boston.
|
|
| | | 10 | Mith
ID: 4310402110
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 14:56
|
I watched a lot of people escorted out of their homes on several live feeds that day. Many of them barefoot and some carrying babies without a diaper bag or any supplies you'd expect to see, clearly distressed and frightened and looking like it wasn't their choice evacuate in such haste.
Can't really know.
Khahan - did you speak with anyone who evacuated in Watertown?
|
|
| | | 11 | Khahan
ID: 39432178
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 14:58
|
MiTH, don't know if it was Watertown specifically. Thats why i was kind of non-specific referring just to 'the region.' They were in lockdown areas, I just don't know specifically which ones.
|
|
| | | 12 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 14:59
|
If you consent to search...this is pretty much what you can expect with any police force. This is how they search once they gain consent.
|
|
| | | 13 | Perm Dude
ID: 201027169
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 15:02
|
Knowing that a bomber might be in the neighborhood might be a contributing factor to how people were feeling as well.
I have no problem with the video myself. What's next: Charging the police with trespassing for chasing a suspect through someone's back yard?
Yes, it was a scary situation. But it was scary because there was a guy running around free with a gun who was in a shootout with police which also involved bombs and grenades. This isn't a situation the police created--this is a situation the police were trying to solve.
|
|
| | | 14 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 15:53
|
8 - Police are only able to search without consent if there is clear and present danger
Actually police can search without consent if the situation is "emergent", or they are in "fresh pursuit". Whether these searches in Watertown fall under these restrictions may be open to conjecture, but the police obviously felt they did.
|
|
| | | 15 | ChicagoTRS
ID: 149171815
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 16:39
|
bibA...what I have read is the police supposedly gained consent before executing all home searches in Watertown. The video on the other hand seems to dispute that notion...because as soon as someone answered the door they had the guys hands up and led him and everyone else out of the house. Would be interested to hear from people whose homes were searched whether consent was asked/granted.
|
|
| | | 16 | bibA
ID: 54522612
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 18:00
|
Not sure if the police gained consent for a search of every house within their containment or not. I would be willing to bet tho that they were going to search every dwelling come hell or high water. They did not want to be put in a position where they didn't locate the suspect, and then have to say "well, we searched all of the houses where someone was home, and where they gave their consent to a search. But we didn't search 53 houses where no one answered the door, or 26 houses where the occupants said that they wouldn't allow us in."
|
|
| | | 17 | Boldwin
ID: 25332317
Tue, Apr 23, 2013, 19:42
|
In fact, the administration’s attempt to redefine what counts as an imminent threat is precisely the same move as it made in its infamous drone memo, which represented a similar extension of elastic Supreme Court standards.
The Obama administration’s decision about the Miranda warnings, in other words, is only the tip of the iceberg, and Boston is the place where civil libertarians’ legitimate fears about the militarization of American criminal justice after 9/11 have come home to roost. Tuff cases make bad law. Everyone understands the extraordinary pressure on the cops in this manhunt and naturally wish to extend to them great leeway. On the otherhand if the administration insists on not labeling terrorists terrorists then we face the prospect of legitimate terrorists after a successful terror attack walking off scot free ala Bill Ayers.
|
|
| | | 18 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Wed, Apr 24, 2013, 05:07
|
This issue made the UK Daily Mail.
link
|
|
| | |
| | |
| | | 21 | nerveclinic
Leader
ID: 05047110
Tue, Apr 30, 2013, 16:25
|
I don't have time to read the whole article because it's after midnight here, but my eyes glazed over when they kept condemning him for associating with people who think there was more to 9/11 then we've been told.
So when that becomes a major premise of the complaint of the article, then obviously the author loses credibility with me.
Have to part from you on that one MITH.
|
|
|
|