Manhattan Buckeye;1431338 wrote:Legally you are likely correct. But if failing to abide by a request results in a gun in one's face, I'm not sure there is much of a difference.

You know, I never really thought about the potential that he was holed up with co-conspirators, and in fact quietly that may have been the primary expectation of the searchers. Doesn't make it legal or justified, but it's going to heighten their suspicions.

I would fully expect at least one jackazz, with all those homes, pushed way too hard with cops on edge. You have near certainty a highly dangerous fugitive is in the area, and in this rather special case would simply a refusal to answer questions constitute probable cause? Heck, we may get an answer to that if this case ends up going to the courts.

gut;1431348 wrote:You know, I never really thought about the potential that he was holed up with co-conspirators, and in fact quietly that may have been the primary expectation of the searchers. Doesn't make it legal or justified, but it's going to heighten their suspicions.

I would fully expect at least one jackazz, with all those homes, pushed way too hard with cops on edge. You have near certainty a highly dangerous fugitive is in the area, and in this rather special case would simply a refusal to answer questions constitute probable cause? Heck, we may get an answer to that if this case ends up going to the courts.

I think now you are seeing why it isn't so black and white, hence my "devil's advocate" questions.

Manhattan Buckeye;1431309 wrote:Apparently not enough to be on lockdown. But maybe that is a Boston thing. Two days after 9/11 I was back in my office.

NYC was pretty locked down. At one point, no one could leave or enter the city. Maybe not a door-to-door lockdown, but the city itself sure was.

Belly35 wrote:...The amassing of armed units, mobilized so quickly in a confined area. It made me proud to think that this is why America is strong and prepared but then again there is the flip side
This is what our 2nd Amendment is all about, the citizen right to protection themselves against their own government.

I'm not sure the 2nd Amendment arming a militia is really about taking up arms against our gubmit. The simple fact is they didn't envision/intend the state sponsored war machine we have.

But that's beside the point. The idea that people are going to overthrow the govt or beat down the US military with hand guns and assault rifles is beyond laughable.

gut;1431355 wrote:I'm not sure the 2nd Amendment arming a militia is really about taking up arms against our gubmit. The simple fact is they didn't envision/intend the state sponsored war machine we have.

But that's beside the point. The idea that people are going to overthrow the govt or beat down the US military with hand guns and assault rifles is beyond laughable.

The point is not to overthrow the goverment or beat down the military but fact that there is a potential resistance is the probelm.

WebFire;1431352 wrote:I think now you are seeing why it isn't so black and white, hence my "devil's advocate" questions.

No, it's pretty black & white. They cannot search without a warrant or permission. However, they have probable cause if they have reason to believe a person in that house is in immediate danger or under duress, but a fugitive in the area would not be enough by itself lacking other evidence.

You never HAVE to answer an officer's questions. That does not give them probable cause. The only gray area here is with justifiable reason to believe someone could be under duress they'll have more leeway in making that determination from answers, body language, etc...

Belly35;1431360 wrote:The point is not to overthrow the goverment or beat down the military but fact that there is a potential resistance is the probelm.

Again, that you think bringing a gun to a tank fight is going to offer any sort of resistance is laughable. If they want to come take your guns, they'll do that. I think you're mistaken in assuming in that situation they care about innocents or collateral damage. They'll come take your guns, peacefully, or they'll level your house.

So, to recap:

On the non-political thread: It took how long to catch one guy? These cops must suck at doing their job!!!!

On the political thread: The cops wanted to search homes inside their perimeter regardless of whether permission may or may not have been granted. Screw the bomber, that's illegal!!!!

And Belly: I'm tying this into my "I should be able to have a gun in my hand 24/7 and ain't no one gonna stop me!" agenda and NOTHING ELSE MATTERS!!!!


While the last part is meaningless tripe as far as this incident in Boston is concerned, the first two show, as Web said, that it's a "damned if do; damned if don't" sort of thing. Especially when you consider vague wordings. What might be "unreasonable" to some (Uh, I know no one is in my house; why the fuck should I let you in?), might not be to others (Uh, there's dangerous mofo on the loose and this area needs searched because we think he might be in the near vicinity). Which leads to the question of who determines "unreasonable" as it relates to the Constitution in a situation like this.

That house was like a clown car...

gut;1431363 wrote:No, it's pretty black & white. They cannot search without a warrant or permission. However, they have probable cause if they have reason to believe a person in that house is in immediate danger or under duress, but a fugitive in the area would not be enough by itself lacking other evidence.

You never HAVE to answer an officer's questions. That does not give them probable cause. The only gray area here is with justifiable reason to believe someone could be under duress they'll have more leeway in making that determination from answers, body language, etc...

So it's black and white with a gray area?

WebFire;1431394 wrote:So it's black and white with a gray area?

Yes, probable cause can frequently be a gray area. Black & White in terms of there not being some sort of special circumstances that somehow suspend the Constitution, as you seem to be implying. There's no special authority here, that's what is black & white.

gut;1431401 wrote:Yes, probable cause can frequently be a gray area. Black & White in terms of there not being some sort of special circumstances that somehow suspend the Constitution, as you seem to be implying. There's no special authority here, that's what is black & white.

I am not implying that. In fact I am saying the EXACT thing you are saying. That the unreasonable part of the language can be gray. I never said anything any different. Yet here you are arguing with me while saying the same thing.

gut;1431367 wrote:Again, that you think bringing a gun to a tank fight is going to offer any sort of resistance is laughable. If they want to come take your guns, they'll do that. I think you're mistaken in assuming in that situation they care about innocents or collateral damage. They'll come take your guns, peacefully, or they'll level your house.

Again, it's sheer numbers.

A recent research survey said that there are 89 REGISTERED guns for every 100 US citizens. There is about 30% that own guns, meaning each household that does averages about 3 guns.

So, 30% of 300 million people is 90 million people with guns in the US, and they all have about 3.

90 million people with 3 guns.
The TOTAL US military, including NG reserves, is around 2.3 million.

90 million vs 2.3 million, even though the 2.3 million have better "guns" the war would still be won by the 90 million.

The 2nd amendment was meant to be a detterent, not to win an actual war with the US government.

jmog;1431450 wrote:Again, it's sheer numbers.

A recent research survey said that there are 89 REGISTERED guns for every 100 US citizens. There is about 30% that own guns, meaning each household that does averages about 3 guns.

So, 30% of 300 million people is 90 million people with guns in the US, and they all have about 3.

90 million people with 3 guns.
The TOTAL US military, including NG reserves, is around 2.3 million.

90 million vs 2.3 million, even though the 2.3 million have better "guns" the war would still be won by the 90 million.

The 2nd amendment was meant to be a detterent, not to win an actual war with the US government.

A single tyrant in control of 5,000+ Nuclear Warheads and a military that is increasingly composed of drones that do not discriminate is not deterred by 90 million people with small arms. The potential tyrant in the United States armed to the teeth and the numbers would be irrelevant. It'd be like playing battleship.

There's a gray area whenever the word reasonable is employed in a legal sense.

gut is spot on. Webby, what exactly are you trying to say? I feel like there's a simpler point you're trying to make

lhslep134;1431503 wrote:There's a gray area whenever the word reasonable is employed in a legal sense.

gut is spot on. Webby, what exactly are you trying to say? I feel like there's a simpler point you're trying to make

My very first post about this brought up the question about the definition of unreasonable. I'm not sure how it got turned into anything else.

WebFire;1431504 wrote:My very first post about this brought up the question about the definition of unreasonable. I'm not sure how it got turned into anything else.

That will always be a gray area. To answer your question by repeating others....theoretically: without probable cause, they have no right to enter the home it's a 4th amendment violation. Practically, in Watertown: there's no probable cause but like someone said, in a fugitive situation it's possible that factors that normally wouldn't will serve as probable cause (ie signs of duress)

lhslep134;1431514 wrote:That will always be a gray area. To answer your question by repeating others....theoretically: without probable cause, they have no right to enter the home it's a 4th amendment violation. Practically, in Watertown: there's no probable cause but like someone said, in a fugitive situation it's possible that factors that normally wouldn't will serve as probable cause (ie signs of duress)

Which is pretty much what I said/asked. Not sure what all the confusion is about.

To further the discussion, if everyone here agrees they violated the 4th, what should they have done? Just searched the public streets, and then said, "sorry, didn't find him. Ya'll have a good day."

I bet more people would have been pissed about that. That is really all I was asking to begin with.

Someone asked on a different forum, but what did they do with the houses where no one was home? Were those searched as well? If not, what if you ignored the knocking of the police? Would they kick the door down or just look around outside and then leave?

WebFire;1431184 wrote:The 4th amendment protects you from UNREASONABLE searches and seizures. So the question is, what is unreasonable? Is a terrorist on the loose a reasonable reason to search?

By itself, the answer is 100% "No".

tk421;1431520 wrote:Someone asked on a different forum, but what did they do with the houses where no one was home? Were those searched as well? If not, what if you ignored the knocking of the police? Would they kick the door down or just look around outside and then leave?

I think a legitimate case could be made that, with all (or nearly all) residents observing the lockdown and the suspect known to be in the area...a reasonable person could assume people in the house but not answering to possibly be in imminent danger.

However, if police would see evidence of an unrelated crime I don't think it would be admissible. I assume that evidence or knowledge would be illegally obtained.

gut;1431367 wrote:Again, that you think bringing a gun to a tank fight is going to offer any sort of resistance is laughable. If they want to come take your guns, they'll do that. I think you're mistaken in assuming in that situation they care about innocents or collateral damage. They'll come take your guns, peacefully, or they'll level your house.

I know more about collateral damage than you could ever understand.

Overwhelming amount of American citizen with weapons ... yes I will take that over a tank ...


But your statement interest me .. You seem to be Ok with the idea that your goverment can take from you or any number of America citizen at will by force and You're OK with that?

How about this one: Didn't they advise residents to lock all doors? So would finding an unlocked door be probable cause to enter?

Belly35;1431526 wrote: But your statement interest me .. You seem to be Ok with the idea that your goverment can take from you or any number of America citizen at will by force and You're OK with that?

Has nothing to do with being ok with it or not. I KNOW the govt could take from us by force.

Sorry, you and your guns are little more than a nuisance to whomever controls the military. Look what just happened in Watertown - the govt could systematically overwhelm areas with force and disarm the citizens. You pop-off a few rounds and they level your house.

The idea of the 2nd amendment was that a militia - not a state-sponsored army - would protect us from tyranny, foreign or domestic.

tk421;1431520 wrote:Someone asked on a different forum, but what did they do with the houses where no one was home? Were those searched as well? If not, what if you ignored the knocking of the police? Would they kick the door down or just look around outside and then leave?

I had read or watched somewhere, and I'm sure I'll never find the source, that they gave a knock, a bullhorn, and if no answer they forced their way in. I could be way off, but it seems I remember that.