Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
I Nearly Lost It On FaceBook.
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Glocktogo" data-source="post: 2175362" data-attributes="member: 1132"><p>So what part of your long post does the described scenario fit? Because from what I read (and know), none of what you posted is relevant to the situation at hand. If I'm in my home and there's a killer on the loose in my area, I'm going to be armed and I'm going to be in charge of my home. If the killer breaks in, either he's dead or I am. When the police come knocking with M4's pointed in on my door, I ain't coming to it. I'll call 911 and explain that I do not consent to a search, because no search is necessary. If they force entry, I'll comply with their commands, but you can bet your ass that I'll be filing suit ASAP. We might be able to work it out before it goes to court, but I'm still working the system until it's done. </p><p></p><p>Most of what they did in this situation is completely unnecessary and endangered the public. It absolutely creates fear to have multiple weapons pointed at you when no threat is present. The pat downs on the sidewalk were unnecessary. After seeing this video: <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B_Gb6i5DF9k" target="_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B_Gb6i5DF9k</a> you cannot deny that law enforcement terrorized the public. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>So what you're saying is that all the residents of Watertown were an immediate threat, and using deadly force against them was justified? Because the police pointed their lethal weapons at MANY residents in their search, but never pointed their weapons at the terrorist until he was spotted by a resident. That's the point you don't get. I don't deserve to have a real deal, loaded assault weapon pointed at me in my own home, while complying with an order to remain in my home! I present NO threat to anyone who doesn't enter my home by force, and that includes police! They unnecessarily endangered many innocent citizens by the method they used. What would've happened if they accidentally killed an innocent citizen during these high risk raids? "Oops, we're sorry, but it's justified."???</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I did and none of it applied in this situation. You can't claim "hot pursuit" to justify searching every home in a town at gunpoint. Perhaps we need to carve out a "lukewarm pursuit" exemption to the 4th Amendment?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Best post in this thread. Kudos to you sir!</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Umm...No. That would mean I could violate your rights, just because I felt like it. The government in this case decided that their lives were worth more than the lives of the Watertown residents, and they used the safety of the residents as their excuse. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, regardless of the "specialness" of the circumstances. Either they rise to the level of exigency, or they do not. Even under exigent circumstances, rules still apply. It's not a blank check to do whatever you please. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Exactly. Dozens, if not hundreds of high risk raids failed to produce the suspect.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes. One citizen did what hundreds of heavily armed and armored LEO's couldn't do in the process of violating the rights of Watertown residents. I couldn't have said it better myself. <img src="/images/smilies/frown.png" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":(" title="Frown :(" data-shortname=":(" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Glocktogo, post: 2175362, member: 1132"] So what part of your long post does the described scenario fit? Because from what I read (and know), none of what you posted is relevant to the situation at hand. If I'm in my home and there's a killer on the loose in my area, I'm going to be armed and I'm going to be in charge of my home. If the killer breaks in, either he's dead or I am. When the police come knocking with M4's pointed in on my door, I ain't coming to it. I'll call 911 and explain that I do not consent to a search, because no search is necessary. If they force entry, I'll comply with their commands, but you can bet your ass that I'll be filing suit ASAP. We might be able to work it out before it goes to court, but I'm still working the system until it's done. Most of what they did in this situation is completely unnecessary and endangered the public. It absolutely creates fear to have multiple weapons pointed at you when no threat is present. The pat downs on the sidewalk were unnecessary. After seeing this video: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=B_Gb6i5DF9k[/url] you cannot deny that law enforcement terrorized the public. So what you're saying is that all the residents of Watertown were an immediate threat, and using deadly force against them was justified? Because the police pointed their lethal weapons at MANY residents in their search, but never pointed their weapons at the terrorist until he was spotted by a resident. That's the point you don't get. I don't deserve to have a real deal, loaded assault weapon pointed at me in my own home, while complying with an order to remain in my home! I present NO threat to anyone who doesn't enter my home by force, and that includes police! They unnecessarily endangered many innocent citizens by the method they used. What would've happened if they accidentally killed an innocent citizen during these high risk raids? "Oops, we're sorry, but it's justified."??? I did and none of it applied in this situation. You can't claim "hot pursuit" to justify searching every home in a town at gunpoint. Perhaps we need to carve out a "lukewarm pursuit" exemption to the 4th Amendment? Best post in this thread. Kudos to you sir! Umm...No. That would mean I could violate your rights, just because I felt like it. The government in this case decided that their lives were worth more than the lives of the Watertown residents, and they used the safety of the residents as their excuse. Unconstitutional is unconstitutional, regardless of the "specialness" of the circumstances. Either they rise to the level of exigency, or they do not. Even under exigent circumstances, rules still apply. It's not a blank check to do whatever you please. Exactly. Dozens, if not hundreds of high risk raids failed to produce the suspect. Yes. One citizen did what hundreds of heavily armed and armored LEO's couldn't do in the process of violating the rights of Watertown residents. I couldn't have said it better myself. :( [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
I Nearly Lost It On FaceBook.
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom