Americans Ordered Out Of Homes At Gunpoint By SWAT teams

[SabrinaDeep]

Under some castle doctrine laws (which are state based and not federal), if someone illegally enters your residence, that may be a different matter.

Well, you answered yourself: no warrant = illegal.

When i said trespassing my property i was referring to a bunch of ppl entering my property at gun point and i like to believe that if they don't have a warrant or i didn't authorized them to get into my property pointing a gun at me (which i believe i wouldn't...) they would be on the wrong side of the law and i might feel the need to load my gun and shoot at them. That's why you need a warrant.

 

[Elwood70]

Castle doctrine from state-to-state

 

[georges]

let's see how much joy you will have with this shitty government for the next three years

 

[Will E Worm]

“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
-Ben Franklin

http://www.whatourforefathersthought.com/Quotes.html


Democratic constitutional rights represent the protections of the interests of the common man (99% of all people). The superwealthy controllers of the military industrial complex have no use for it and will always try to find ways to destroy it so as to grant themselves ultimate power and control of the masses.

The hegelian dialectical (http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/dialectic.htm) approach is the favorite tool of facist government entities because it is extremely effective, and thus has and will repeatedly be used to generate fear within the masses so that the military industrial complex may subvert all human rights and destroy the constitution for good.

Under Obama, the military industrial complex will not likely try to seize full power over the nation, but this bombing plot is a test for their ability to institute and utilize military police state powers. Once Obama is gone, they will try harder to extend this police power over the entire nation be creating the necessary "exigent circumstances" for subversion.

Most people don't know what it means to live in a police state, but alot of people do, as one of those people who do, I strongly suggest you not take the point that the article makes lightly.

People get killed and die everyday. There is NEVER any reason to suspend constitutional rights because of it. In fact, at times of supposed terrorist attacks, Amercians constitutional rights should be protected even stronger by the government.

:goodpost: They gave up their essential liberties and rights to obtain nothing in Boston.

What some people don't understand it's not the act in itself, it's the creation of a precedent. Today is the Boston bomber, tomorrow is a neighbor who called police stating that he saw you carrying something highly suspicious in the house. That's why there is a law which requires a warrant which summed to the right to equality before the law shouldn't even bring the hypothesis of a search without a warrant by anybody into discussion. I don't pay taxes for being searched in my property at gunpoint without a warrant. Don't forget that a warrant also serves as an identification and as an acknowledgement of legitimacy of the action to be taken and to just dismiss it as not necessary in certain matters from time to time simply breaks the equality before the law principle and it violates my rights which cops, paid with my taxes, sworn to protect.

I might be wrong, but i believe that if you trespass my property without a valid authorization (mine or of a warrant) i'm entitled to shoot you, in the US, and then i wonder what would happen if that was the case. How do i know that you are swats when i see you approaching my property at gun point? Just because you have rifles, machine guns and a black jacket with written swats on the back? That would be a good suggestion to criminals for a kidnapping plan or a robbery or something...dress like a swat and avoid a citizen's reaction and self defense. I don't think so.

:goodpost: Liberals just don't understand.

Well, you answered yourself: no warrant = illegal.

When i said trespassing my property i was referring to a bunch of ppl entering my property at gun point and i like to believe that if they don't have a warrant or i didn't authorized them to get into my property pointing a gun at me (which i believe i wouldn't...) they would be on the wrong side of the law and i might feel the need to load my gun and shoot at them. That's why you need a warrant.

:yesyes:

 

[eric2136]

That is an uninformed opinion about a law that's been on the books for years, and it evades my direct question- how would you suggest future manhunts of this nature be conducted? Manhunts happen all the time, fortunately, not all fugitives throw bombs at the cops.

What law specifically are you referring to ? People have shoot-outs with cops, high-speed chases etc. and that is not a justification to turn the city into a police state with tanks going up and down the streets, intimidating common citizens without justification, and conducting random door to door searchs and interrogations at gun point.

I expect the apprehension of suspects in this case to follow the same constitutional rules of criminal procedure as with any other crime. Compile a list of leads for possible suspects, investigate those leads, and then apprehend the lead suspect if there is sufficient evidence to charge the individual(s) with the crime.

What I don't expect is some rush-to-judgement trial and jury done by the media, and military "lock-down" law being instituted before a suspect is even identified.

 

[xfire]

What law specifically are you referring to ? People have shoot-outs with cops, high-speed chases etc. and that is not a justification to turn the city into a police state with tanks going up and down the streets, intimidating common citizens without justification, and conducting random door to door searchs and interrogations at gun point.

I expect the apprehension of suspects in this case to follow the same constitutional rules of criminal procedure as with any other crime. Compile a list of leads for possible suspects, investigate those leads, and then apprehend the lead suspect if there is sufficient evidence to charge the individual(s) with the crime.

What I don't expect is some rush-to-judgement trial and jury done by the media, and military "lock-down" law being instituted before a suspect is even identified.

I suggest your follow the link Jagger provided for the statute and case law. The lock-down didn't happen until after the suspects killed an MIT police officer. How many suspects throw bombs at the police? This wasn't an ordinary situation.

 

[eric2136]

I suggest your follow the link Jagger provided for the statute and case law. The lock-down didn't happen until after the suspects killed an MIT police officer. How many suspects throw bombs at the police? This wasn't an ordinary situation.

What LAW (statutory reference) are you referring too that specifically justifies random military lock-down because 4 or 5 people get killed, Jagger provided a link for the definition of exigent circumnstances for enterring and searching residences without obtaining a warrant which, under the reasonable person test, doesn't, in any way, warrant random door to door searches at gun-point, but could only arguably be applied to specific instances where police reasonably believe that a suspect or evidece directly pertaining to the crime is in the residence.

Just because the bombing was on TV doesn't make it an emergency situation. When interviewed by NPR about it, Juliette Kayyem, former top Homeland Security official from Massachusetts and now a columnist for the Boston Globe never mentioned the MIT police officer being killed as justification for the lockdown. Police officers get killed everyday and that is FAR from the "emergency" justification necessary for instituting a citywide lockdown and going door to door interrogating citizens at gunpoint.

 

[xfire]

What LAW (statutory reference) are you referring too that specifically justifies random military lock-down because 4 or 5 people get killed, Jagger provided a link for the definition of exigent circumnstances for enterring and searching residences without obtaining a warrant which, under the reasonable person test, doesn't, in any way, warrant random door to door searches at gun-point, but could only arguably be applied to specific instances where police reasonably believe that a suspect or evidece directly pertaining to the crime is in the residence.

Just because the bombing was on TV doesn't make it an emergency situation. When interviewed by NPR about it, Juliette Kayyem, former top Homeland Security official from Massachusetts and now a columnist for the Boston Globe never mentioned the MIT police officer being killed as justification for the lockdown. Police officers get killed everyday and that is FAR from the "emergency" justification necessary for instituting a citywide lockdown and going door to door interrogating citizens at gunpoint.

If you wish to blow off an act of domestic terrorism that's fine, thankfully law enforcement wasn't willing to. I am glad to see that you've retreated from the government conspiracy angle of your previous posts.

 

[Rey C.]

let's see how much joy you will have with this shitty government for the next three years

Maybe we'll get Jeb Bush in 2016. His brother, George W., was certainly a champion of civil liberties.

 

[meesterperfect]

so they were looking for the guys who bombed the marathon?
Well, at least they knocked first.

Getting a warrant from a judge, especially that day in boston would be very easy and quick.
All they would need is probable cause, and that could be anything really.
They probably did have a warrant.

if not, then they were just fishing, and EXIGENT CIRCUMSTANCES did not apply.
i'd be pissed if they came to my home like that, without a warrant or probable cause.

remember, whether you are guilty of a crime, not guilty, even getting pulled over just going to the police for help........they don't care if you are innocent or not.
They are not your advocates. Their job is to make arrests........then let the courts figure it out.