Explosion at Boston marathon

Sundance_ · Post by **Sundance_** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:11 pm

HSharp wrote:QUOTE (HSharp @ Apr 29 2013, 04:09 AM) You fired at deer and raccoon(s) on duty? Using your issued firearm and ammunition? If so then corruption in MN police force wasting tax payers money!

It's euthanization... tax write-off!

Sundance_ · Post by **Sundance_** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:15 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 29 2013, 08:51 AM) I can appreciate the thought you're trying to convey, but to me it seems suicidal to be a police officer and not carry a firearm. What happens if some criminal has an illegal firearm? I don't like the idea of police bossing me around for no good reason, but I also don't like the idea of a police force that can't protect me or my family because the criminals are better armed.

Also I've asked multiple colleagues about their thoughts on the house to house search for the marathon bomber, and to a person all of them have said that they believe those searches were covered by the hot pursuit and public safety/exigent circumstances exceptions to the 4th amendment (which requires warrants for searches). I think a key point is that the searches were limited to finding the bomber, and no one was arrested for anything found in those homes. If contraband was found doing those searches, aside from that belonging to the bomber, the likely outcome would be those cases being dismissed.

Contrary to what metz might say, I have found that most cops in the US are pretty good. There of course are occasions where they overstep their bounds, but I think that is pretty rare. The usual cases of abuse are against people that cops for one reason or another consider troublemakers, either because they constantly get arrested for minor offenses or because they mouth off to cops.

Chalking those searches up to "hot pursuit" is bullsh*t. BULLSH*T!

The hot pursuit exception to a warrentless search of a dwelling is WHILE YOU OBSERVE the suspect enter that house as you are in ACTIVE pursuit. The cops (et al) in Boston lost the suspect, and decided to search door to door for him. Violation of the 4th Amendment, and had I lived in Boston and they wanted to force their way into my house, despite me informing them that 1) he wasn't there, 2) i'm an officer, and 3) 4th amendment violation, i'd have gone to jail for resisting (blocking the front door) and sued them in court for violating my 4th amendment right. If I lost, well, then we know 100% that the Bill of Rights is dead.

Eff that...

Mastametz · Post by **Mastametz** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 7:19 pm

Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ Apr 29 2013, 12:15 PM) i'd have gone to jail for resisting

I'm pretty sure you'd just have gotten shot and labeled some sort of domestic terrorist

Sundance_ · Post by **Sundance_** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:05 pm

Sheriff Metz wrote:QUOTE (Sheriff Metz @ Apr 29 2013, 02:19 PM) I'm pretty sure you'd just have gotten shot and labeled some sort of domestic terrorist

Sometimes that's what it feels like... being conservative these days...

Adept · Post by **Adept** » Mon Apr 29, 2013 8:52 pm

We have a ton of hunting rifles and shotguns arond the contry. What we have very few of are pistols and revolvers, and it's practically impossible to get consealed carry permits for them.

A cop on the beat being shot just for beng a po-po isn't a threat. Maybe in the rural areas it would happen is the specific cop was a massive abusive *#$@.

As of the situation not being applicable Masta, I would expect the middle sized cities are pretty similar. 50k - 200k population. It's the huge metropolitan areas we don't have. Even the capital is just half a mil. London is absolutely huge though, and their local coppers do great without carrying a piece.

It does work, and I wish us Finns were smart enough to demand the same.

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 8:31 pm

Sundance_ wrote:QUOTE (Sundance_ @ Apr 29 2013, 03:15 PM) Chalking those searches up to "hot pursuit" is bullsh*t. BULLSH*T!

The hot pursuit exception to a warrentless search of a dwelling is WHILE YOU OBSERVE the suspect enter that house as you are in ACTIVE pursuit. The cops (et al) in Boston lost the suspect, and decided to search door to door for him. Violation of the 4th Amendment, and had I lived in Boston and they wanted to force their way into my house, despite me informing them that 1) he wasn't there, 2) i'm an officer, and 3) 4th amendment violation, i'd have gone to jail for resisting (blocking the front door) and sued them in court for violating my 4th amendment right. If I lost, well, then we know 100% that the Bill of Rights is dead.

Eff that...

Perhaps you missed that I said hot pursuit AND public safety/exigent circumstances exceptions. Also, you're wrong about the requirements of the exception. See this link for some discussion.

I think your argument is stupid. If two guys with guns just blew up a public function, tossed bombs at cops, then had a shootout and ran into a crowded suburb, I think a house to house search is justified.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:03 pm

TakingArms wrote:QUOTE (TakingArms @ Apr 30 2013, 02:31 PM) Perhaps you missed that I said hot pursuit AND public safety/exigent circumstances exceptions. Also, you're wrong about the requirements of the exception. See this link for some discussion.

I think your argument is stupid. If two guys with guns just blew up a public function, tossed bombs at cops, then had a shootout and ran into a crowded suburb, I think a house to house search is justified.

The kid didn't have a gun with him when he was captured and shot at by police officers lololoalaoeoddheuheuehuheuhaueaheuheuhauehuheuheuhe

You are so libertard

takingarms1 · Post by **takingarms1** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:06 pm

SgtMajor wrote:QUOTE (SgtMajor @ Apr 30 2013, 05:03 PM) The kid didn't have a gun with him when he was captured and shot at by police officers lololoalaoeoddheuheuehuheuhaueaheuheuhauehuheuheuhe

You are so libertard

I agree with that fact, but that fact was not discovered until after they found him. What they did know before they found him was that he and his brother shot at cops, and threw bombs at cops, and killed one and injured several. To presume he had a weapon and was armed and dangerous was natural.

For all you know, he had a gun and ditched it after the firefight. Or maybe he was the one throwing the bombs. But to assume that since he had no weapon, the police were not justified and treating him the way they did is a pretty ridiculous argument considering what the guy did (i.e. shooting at cops, killing cops, throwing bombs at cops) just hours before.

Honestly these arguments make me think i'm living in the twilight zone and make you sound like a nutcase.

SgtMajor · Post by **SgtMajor** » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:10 pm

I actually laughed

HE HAD A GUN SO ITS JUSTIFIABLE, HE SHOT AT COPS SO SHOOT HIM UNNARMED, HE IS DANGEROUS BURN THAT MOTHER $#@!ER DOWN, THAT VILLAGER IS WALKING THAT GOAT THE WRONG WAY START THE DRONE STRIKE

Bretty gud jok :DDDD

Viscur · Post by **Viscur** » Thu May 02, 2013 12:37 am

When a person is at one point armed, and then you lose sight of the suspect, you continue to treat him as armed until he's in custody.

Wounded, under some persons boat cover and out of sight of everyone involved does not constitute "in custody".