Watch the police remove a Watertown family from their home, and then search it.

[Jorg]

This comes to mind.

"They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security." - Ben Franklin

 

[JCV]

this video makes me so sick and angry.
this is what the msm needs to be airing all day, show what exactly was happening that day. we all know that will never happen though.

 

[Jason Flare]

Few people understand the fourth amendment and its importance to the founders and the people of this nation, just as few people understand the second amendment and its importance.

 

[Bluefin]

how many people were in that house...college frat?

 

[Coyote33]

I've read that case. It's the Sherborn one that I couldnt find a link to.

As far as the Godfrey case, my favorite line is this:

Notwithstanding the serious danger that existed, especially to children, Godfrey invoked his constitutional rights and refused to cooperate with the police. The chief stated that while he respected Godfrey's constitutional entitlements, he also had to recognize the "serious danger which continues to exist." It is on that basis that the chief determined that Godfrey was "no longer a suitable person to be licensed to carry a firearm."

Here is the some more:

The District Court record shows that Godfrey, in the face of what the chief reasonably deemed to be a continuing and serious danger to the safety of the public, especially young children, refused to cooperate with the police investigation and respond to questions. Although Godfrey might have been well within his rights in declining to answer, and although he might be entitled to some remedy upon proof of his claim that the revocation was "in retaliation" for his assertion of his rights, ..., that remedy is not reinstatement of his firearms license. The record shows that Godfrey did not sustain his burden of showing that the chief's decision was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

So HE had to provide proof, and HE was in the face of danger, yet made to seem as though he was the danger itself? And making things right (reinstatement) wasn't done? WTF, over?

 

[Midnight412]

In all of the homes that were searched, does anyone know of one incident where a homeowner said no to the search and what happened next?

I have it in my head that if they were knocking on my door, I would tell them to wait outside while I did my own in home sweep. Of course in reality, that probably wouldn't play well. Of course, I probably would have had an AR or SG out of the safe in a "shelter in place" situation, am am wondering how that would go over when they decided to come in anyway...

This is where we will lose if the left gets their way... The streets will be filled in the same manner and the individual 2A folks will get taken out one by one. The decision of I'll let them confiscate now and file a lawsuit later won't matter because too many just let this happen. The time to say NO was Friday. The time to answer, "No I won't open the door, go get a warrant" was then. Now it is past, the MSM isn't covering it, and the next time, they will do it again, because the people will be conditioned to accept it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dcmdon]

ACLU is cool with it. There is an exigent circumstance to the 4th amendment.

Thats not an exigent circumstance. It has to be a situation that requires entry NOW. Like someone inside the building calling for help, the smell of MJ smoke, or something like that. If the occupants are not believed to be in distress and are not believed to be engaged in the destruction of evidence then no entry.

Further, LEOs are allowed to go in only far enough to do what is necessary. For example if they need to go 10 ft in to arrest someone, they can not then sweep the building for evidence without a warrant.

Its a safe bet that they will make up some story to try to show exigency, but it will be pretty apparent its BS.

Why were the occupants made to put their arms on their heads? Seriously. If you are searching for a badguy why treat the occupants like criminals?

- - - Updated - - -

I keep hoping someone from this board who lives in watertown will give us some First hand info.

 

[wfd38383]

I'm sure the people here will be ok with this and will "understand" considering the circumstances. I am utterly amazed at the people so willing to give up their freedoms and so happy to do so

 

[mikem317]

ACLU is cool with it. There is an exigent circumstance to the 4th amendment.

The ACLU is not cool with it.

Yes, there's an "exigent circumstance" clause in 4A, but it's not what most liberals think it means. American jurisprudence has also required probable cause, e.g. "The suspect has entered the structure!" Absent this, the "exigent circumstance" exception is a moot point.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm sure the people here will be ok with this and will "understand" considering the circumstances. I am utterly amazed at the people so willing to give up their freedoms and so happy to do so

I've taken pot shot after pot shot on FB on this. I've come to the conclusion that most Americans care very little of whatever rights they have left, so long as it's the right to smoke dope.

 

[Lank]

I brought the warrantless searches up at lunch today. I asked my colleagues where the police got the legal authority to search house to house, with no probable cause. They basically said who cares and what else could the police do. In the end, they probably think I wear a tinfoil hat listening for martian 'vaders.

Unhappy, but not surprised at the general lack of concern my colleagues displayed, I returned to my desk to do some googling.

Two general exceptions-

Hot pursuit, where if I understand it correctly, if a LEO is chasing a perp through a neighborhood and perp breaks into house, the LEO can enter to give chase.

Second, they can enter if there is reason to believe that evidence is being destroyed.

I dont think hot pursuit applies to a 20 block radius.

 

[mikem317]

Thats not an exigent circumstance. It has to be a situation that requires entry NOW. Like someone inside the building calling for help, the smell of MJ smoke, or something like that. If the occupants are not believed to be in distress and are not believed to be engaged in the destruction of evidence then no entry.

Further, LEOs are allowed to go in only far enough to do what is necessary. For example if they need to go 10 ft in to arrest someone, they can not then sweep the building for evidence without a warrant.

Its a safe bet that they will make up some story to try to show exigency, but it will be pretty apparent its BS.

Why were the occupants made to put their arms on their heads? Seriously. If you are searching for a badguy why treat the occupants like criminals?

- - - Updated - - -

I keep hoping someone from this board who lives in watertown will give us some First hand info.

"Exigent circumstance" usually requires probable cause which, in legal land, is a pretty low bar.

Warrants are typically not required in very limited situations, e.g. the suspect is going to escape, the destruction of evidence will occur (e.g. suspect disposing of drugs down toilet, etc.) or something to this effect.

Here's a post on the Lewrockwell.com Blog site from a reader from Watertown, MA.

'I Am a Watertown Resident...' « LewRockwell.com Blog

"It is happening before my eyes. Liberty was born here, and this week, Liberty has officially died. It is playing out like a bad predictable movie and the masses are too caught up in the bread & circuses to notice. As a daily LewRockwell.com reader, I see the stories in print every day and have intellectually understood the patterns. But this week, in my backyard, I have seen it first-hand and there is no going back. Welcome to the militarized United States of America.

Sums up my thoughts too.

 

[Lank]

The ACLU is not cool with it.

Yes, there's an "exigent circumstance" clause in 4A, but it's not what most liberals think it means. American jurisprudence has also required probable cause, e.g. "The suspect has entered the structure!" Absent this, the "exigent circumstance" exception is a moot point.

- - - Updated - - -



I've taken pot shot after pot shot on FB on this. I've come to the conclusion that most Americans care very little of whatever rights they have left, so long as it's the right to smoke dope.

EXACTLY why I 86'd Facebook and this Forum became my social media. Facebook exposes how completety retarded most people really are. I got tired of leftivist jagg-off's I know ranting about how health care is a human right, and "Liking" obama.

 

[iceRN09]

What i would do next time is i would post my Rights in bold letters in front of my door. Telling them that i have surveillance video around my property and had reviewed the tape and the person they are looking at is not in my property. My dilemma is how they would treat you if you are armed and you have a vault full of Weapons.

 

[mikem317]

EXACTLY why I 86'd Facebook and this Forum became my social media. Facebook exposes how completety retarded most people really are. I got tired of leftivist jagg-off's I know ranting about how health care is a human right, and "Liking" obama.

I probably have to do the same. I only know two other NESers personally, but almost everybody here is a better friend to me than all my "physical" friends.

 

[Nectaris]

Amazed the dog made it out alive.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I've read that case. It's the Sherborn one that I couldnt find a link to.

As far as the Godfrey case, my favorite line is this:

Notwithstanding the serious danger that existed, especially to children, Godfrey invoked his constitutional rights and refused to cooperate with the police. The chief stated that while he respected Godfrey's constitutional entitlements, he also had to recognize the "serious danger which continues to exist." It is on that basis that the chief determined that Godfrey was "no longer a suitable person to be licensed to carry a firearm."

Sherborn? Did I say Sherborn - silly me. It's Shelburne

CHIEF OF POLICE OF SHELBURNE vs. MOYER, 16 Mass. App. Ct. 543


The key of this decision would be in direct conflict with Heller/McDonald if the same issue was ever raised in a federal court:

(4) There is no right under art. 17 of the Declaration of Rights of the Massachusetts Constitution for a private citizen to keep and bear arms and thus to require that a citizen have a license to do so is not unconstitutional (Commonwealth v. Davis, 369 Mass. 886 [1976]); nor is there any question of a property right or deprivation of liberty involved in the statutory procedures for obtaining a license to carry firearms. The full panoply of procedures usually available at a trial is not required in the review by a District Court in a case of this nature. The hearsay rule should not be applied to evidence proffered by a chief of police in support of the reasonableness of his denial. The test should be one of relevance. See Lotto v. Commonwealth, 369 Mass. 775 , 777-781 (1976). The weight and credibility accorded such evidence is, of course, for the trial judge in deciding the question whether a chief of police had any reasonable ground for refusing to grant the license or, as we have indicated, whether a denial was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

 

[KDK]

Disgusting disregard for the people of Watertown and their 4A rights.

The men are forced to exit with their hands on their heads.


[video=youtube_share;2LrbsUVSVl8]http://youtu.be/2LrbsUVSVl8[/video]

This reminds me of how we operated in the West Bank when I was in the IDF. Eerily similar.

 

[JSnaxx]

This is a WAY different story than I heard from some people down there. I wonder if it was just one ****ED squad? Or this was at the beginning before someone told them to cool their ****ing jets?

An acquaintance told me of a MUCH easier situation, where he politely refused and that was the end of it. Scary stuff

 

[Coyote33]

I probably have to do the same. I only know two other NESers personally, but almost everybody here is a better friend to me than all my "physical" friends.

You need to come to one of these "get togethers" or "meet and greets":

NES get-together

... The key of this decision would be in direct conflict with Heller/McDonald if the same issue was ever raised in a federal court:

 

[AllaSnackbah]

**** that

 

[Coyote33]

please delete this post

 

[economist]

It should bother everyone in here. It should actually make you angry.

Done. But, in fairness I was pretty pissed to begin with.

 

[Twelve Gauge Justice]

I think I know what would happen if they encountered an armed citizen. They would point their gun at you and tell you in a very loud voice to drop it. And if you didn't they would shoot you.

 

[Terrence]

Shit like this is the new normal in Amerika. Most Americans rationalize giving up their rights by saying "I've got nothing to hide" and bend over for the Brownshirts.
I'd love to know what are the exact circumstances of this search.

 

[Terrence]

I think I know what would happen if they encountered an armed citizen. They would point their gun at you and tell you in a very loud voice to drop it. And if you didn't they would shoot you.

On Friday I was much more concerned about the possibility of a squad of infantry on my front steps banging on my door than I was about the 19 year old punk bitch running through my backyard.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Thats not an exigent circumstance. It has to be a situation that requires entry NOW. Like someone inside the building calling for help, the smell of MJ smoke, or something like that.

The smell of MJ smoke is no longer an exigent circumstances in MA as the SJC has ruled that this is merely an indication that a minor civil violation may be occurring that does not even rise to the level of misdemeanor, therefore, is not justification for a search.

 

[MetalgodZ]

It should bother everyone in here. It should actually make you angry.

The number of people I know that are defending this bothers me.

Oh, and the guy who basically told me that my opinion is wrong, that I'm not entitled to one because I haven't served, and that nobody that has served feels that way because they've seen why those tactics are necessary. That does actually make me angry.

 

[economist]

On Friday I was much more concerned about the possibility of a squad of infantry on my front steps banging on my door than I was about the 19 year old punk bitch running through my backyard.

Exactly. I'll take the criminals if the alternative is what we saw last week.

 

[PigPknHeat]

Someone on this fourm has to have some connection to those "heros" that stormed the city that day... What are they saying?

I also find it hard to believe that they did not encounter one armed homeowner with a pistol on his side. If it were me I would have had my pistol in my IWB holster just incase that punk did try to get in my home but it would be out of sight from anyone (LEOs) looking in the windows. I think that given the circumstances having your AR or SG out, although maybe "safer", would have caused alarm for the LEOs and a bullet in the chest for the law abaiding homeowner.

This is total BS...

 

[AntiHippie]

The number of people I know that are defending this bothers me.

Oh, and the guy who basically told me that my opinion is wrong, that I'm not entitled to one because I haven't served, and that nobody that has served feels that way because they've seen why those tactics are necessary. That does actually make me angry.

Meh, I'm waiting to hear the circumstances before I let my blood pressure go up over it. Granted, I can't think of a plausible scenario to explain what we see on the video, but I'll wait for the context. Don't have the energy to get too upset about things anymore until I know it's something to get upset over. (As it very well may be)