yes I know but its still illegal and I would NOT of let them in or open the door I would of told them to get a warrant obviously the people there didn't know about this but that's there problem

1) No, it falls into the exigent circumstance exception. That means it isn't illegal.

2) They don't exactly need you to open the door. They're more than capable of opening your door themselves.

1) No, it falls into the exigent circumstance exception. That means it isn't illegal.

2) They don't exactly need you to open the door. They're more than capable of opening your door themselves.

 

This, Made me laugh until my stomach hurt.

yes I know but its still illegal and I would NOT of let them in or open the door I would of told them to get a warrant obviously the people there didn't know about this but that's there problem

Okay do you even think before you post? he CALLED 911 they don't need a warrant  if you consented. You are really ignorant. 

NBC:  POTUS - "We own a tremendous debt of gratitude to all of our outstanding law enforcement professionals."

Anyone listening to the stream when it happened; it was beautiful. Everyone was thanking each other and damn it was just so sick. Made me wanna be a cop.

 

Yep. I had some shivers going down my back when I heard somebody going "Suspect in custody, suspect in custody". Even though I'm Canadian, I had this "AMERICAAAAAAA" moment in my head. Then everybody is like thanks to the FBI HRT, Boston SWAT, etc. Was a pretty cool time to be listening in.

how am I ignorant? because I believe in the constitution? wow...okay yeah I am ignorant for being a proud American and what this country fought for to be free in the first place and the fact that I don't live in a 3rd world country like north korea where they don't have rights ....remember the bill ndaa? that's pretty unconstitutional....the patriot act...unconstitutional.....bill of rights  Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

NBC:  Suspect will be not given Miranda warnings at this time; government to invoke "public safety exception"

how am I ignorant? because I believe in the constitution? wow...okay yeah I am ignorant for being a proud American and what this country fought for to be free in the first place and the fact that I don't live in a 3rd world country like north korea where they don't have rights ....remember the bill ndaa? that's pretty unconstitutional....the patriot act...unconstitutional.....bill of rights  Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

So you would risk everyone elses life, just to protect your right? That is being ignorant. For all they know, you could of been hiding that jackass in your house. They dont know that, they wanted to make sure that he wasnt in anyones house. As cp702 said, they would have no problem busting your door down. I, myself, are a damn proud american. I believe in my rights, but if there is a fucking terrorist in MY county/State/City and the Police wanted to make sure he isnt in my house, i would gladly let them. Its called respect. Id rather let them do it then and there, then waste their time getting a search warrant when the guy could be doing another attack at a different place.

 

NBC:  Suspect is alive, suffering blood loss.

how am I ignorant? because I believe in the constitution? wow...okay yeah I am ignorant for being a proud American and what this country fought for to be free in the first place and the fact that I don't live in a 3rd world country like north korea where they don't have rights ....remember the bill ndaa? that's pretty unconstitutional....the patriot act...unconstitutional.....bill of rights  Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

1) The text "Article the sixth" occurs nowhere in the Bill of Rights. It's broken into amendments, not articles.

2) The Sixth Amendment has nothing to do with searches. It covers right to an attorney. You're thinking of the Fourth Amendment.

EDIT: 1) and 2) should be replaced with "cp702 needs to learn to do research in unusual places." 3) and 4) still apply. That said, literally no one refers to the Bill of Rights with those numbers. Article the first from your source was never ratified, and is not part of the United States Constitution. Article the second was ratified - in 1992, as the 27th Amendment. It is never considered part of the bill of rights. The way everyone would always refer to what you're thinking of, and the way it is officially referred to in all courts, is as the Fourth Amendment.

3) The Fourth Amendment has various legal exceptions. One exception precisely covers this case. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Bill of Rights works - the rights listed have various exceptions. For example, despite the First Amendment, libel is still illegal, commercial speech can be regulated, and it is illegal to incite people to riot. Despite the Fourth Amendment, cops can perform searches if needed to prevent imminent threats to safety (so a cop can pat you down on reasonable suspicion). One such exception says that, if the time to get a warrant presents a danger to the public, a search can be made to protect public safety. This is well-established law. An armed and dangerous suspect on the loose is an imminent threat to public safety, so the police may enter without warrant.

4) The way the Fourth Amendment is generally enforced is by excluding illegally gathered evidence from court (and also excluding any evidence that would not have been gathered were it not for the illegal evidence). Even if the police *did* violate the Fourth Amendment, it would really only come into play if charges were filed based on evidence they get from the violation. The police have the charges and evidence they need already; they weren't searching for evidence here.

Edited April 20, 201313 yr by cp702

im glad they caught him alive that is the right thing to do instead of just shooting him but I don't agree with the martial law they implemented in boston that's NOT America and its illegal to go door to door and coming into homes without a warrant regardless of the situation...maybe if they didn't have gun control they wouldn't of had to have martial law...very scary whats happening

 

You could not be more wrong. It was not Marshall law, it was a lock down its different. No they don't need a warrant for something like that, it falls under national security, and that gives all the "warrant" you needed. They had cause to search every signal house because the man was last seen in the area. Do you want the "terrorist" found or not or do you want your rights to come in first and have your house blowing up by some nut job? Do people like you think? Of course you had to bring gun control in to this..... Good lord kid....

 

Go do some research on things like this and see what justified them into going into everyone's house and checking it out... Its one of those things where, they say can we come in your house and make sure the suspect isn't here, and if they say no that gives them cause to search the house. If they found like weed or something they will just ignore it and say they never seen it....

how am I ignorant? because I believe in the constitution? wow...okay yeah I am ignorant for being a proud American and what this country fought for to be free in the first place and the fact that I don't live in a 3rd world country like north korea where they don't have rights ....remember the bill ndaa? that's pretty unconstitutional....the patriot act...unconstitutional.....bill of rights  Article the sixth ...... The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

 

1.) Your rights go away when something like that happens, if there is a national security threat they go away for a time being. Do you even think? This was the first terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. 

 

Would you rather live in a country where you don't have to worry about being being blowen up by some jackass with a bomb, or in a country where that is a daily threat because you are that "proud American" if you were such a proud american why are you being so pissy they searched peoples houses trying to stop Americans number one enemy terrorist? Get off this thread no one wants to hear your dumb ass logic... About this, next time maybe we find a Nuclear bomb in New York or something, lets just make sure we follow everyone's rights and make sure everyone has a lawyer before we try to get a answer where that nuclear bomb is, would hate to take away someones right to save 6 millions people....

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ON a side note i'm found they got him alive so we can get some questions out of him....

Edited April 20, 201313 yr by Darkangel

 

Enough Said.

 

1.) Your rights go away when something like that happens, if there is a national security threat they go away for a time being. Do you even think? This was the first terrorist attack in the United States since 9/11. 

 

 

ON a side note i'm found they got him alive so we can get some questions out of him....

First *successful* attack.

 

 

There have been plenty attempts.

NBC:  The MIT officer was assassinated while sitting in his cruiser when he responded to a disturbance call.

It's over. All of it. Finally. Good job Bostonians, way to stay strong.

 

 

 

Thank god he is in custody. Like I said in one of my earlier posts. I believed that he would be taken alive. Boston is in Celebrations right now and it is fantastic to see that this suspect is in custody.

HL I would not say it is all over.

 

As they said in the press conference, there is a lot more to do.

 

Finding out who it is behind this and etc...Very very strange that a family that was granted asylum by the united states would have two kids attack the country that saved them and their loved ones.

The searches did not fall under the exigent circumstances as law enforcement officer must have reasonable suspicion that the suspect is inside the premises they are about to search, this is not covered by "we saw him in the area", however they are suspected of committing terrorism so the cops can pretty much do what they want.

 

Keep  in mind that this is probably what it's like to live in a occupied country like Afghanistan or Iraq, this is what they have/had to endure every day, the threat of bomb, scary men carrying assault rifles and driving armoured vehicles though your home town while you try to live a normal life.

 

 

Note:  I will remove this post if anybody is offended by it or if I am in violation of the TOS of LCPDFR

That's not necessarily what exigent circumstances is. This certainly could fall within them. NB, you are not a lawyer. Neither am I. Neither of us is particularly qualified to determine what is and is not constitutional. There's not much point in continuing to talk about this. The police would search your house whether or not you gave consent, and you'd have no chance in hell of successfully objecting; maybe illegal, maybe not, but neither of us can provide great insight.