|Prickly Pete - 2013-04-22 |
I voted this out to have the first comment and say: the police aren't doing this to be dicks. When you're going to such great lengths to find a very dangerous man, there's no time for "Please come out of your house sir, if you don't mind." If I lived there I'd say yes, please pat me down officer, and please pat down everyone in my neighbor's house so I know they don't have any bombs either.
Yep, privacy is an experiment by white European people that's only a few hundred years old and seems to be reaching the end of it's usable life. I'll miss it a lot but I don't see it lasting too much longer.
Pre renaissance architecture didn't have halls because what the fuck is a hall? You just walk from one room to another, why wouldn't you walk through a room in your own home? All rooms are public places.
I'm not saying this is a good thing to return to but seems like it's the way things are headed.
But this video isn't really much of an indicator one way or the other.
Had I read what I wrote out loud, I'd have done so in an impression of noted mid-century character actor, Hans Conried.
|Cockmaster Flash - 2013-04-22 |
The ACLU has been rather quiet about this, which means they are part of the police state.
|rhombus - 2013-04-22 |
"There are also "exigent circumstances" exceptions to the warrant requirement. Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched."
My problem is we've set the bar where this is now okay, and you know someone's going to try lowering it. Is a cop killing enough? Mass shooting? Armed robbery?
Point taken and I generally agree with your concerns. I just wanted to point out the relevant legal principal involved.
Yeah, understandable. Given the scope I'd like to see this laid out clearly or only authorized at the federal level, and including broad rules to pretty much exempt anything out found during this.
I see this and all I can imagine is sheriff Joe Arapio rubbing his hands with glee and waiting for the next time a violent suspect is described as Mexican.
we Americans are definitely living in a surveillance state
I believe that what happened in Watertown is not all that significant of an indicator of this
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy with the situation either, but since nothing is going to be done by the people to actually prevent this sort of thing, the least the people could do is try and secure boundaries for having their rights violated, instead of letting it happen at random.
|EvilHomer - 2013-04-22 |
So search warrants are only for the "wake up sheeple" crowd now? That was fast.
I'm glad their warrantless raids paid off, though. Tough times call for tough measures, as the cops proved that day.
Oh wait, no they didn't. The cops totally let him slip through their fingers, and it fell on some random shmuck to find the dude, half-dead, hiding in a boat. They shit on centuries of legal tradition and come away with absolutely nothing to show for it, but hey, at least a bunch of people came out into the streets and started chanting "U-S-A, U-S-A". I guess that means everything's fine.
Stop being a troofer (see that, a MLP pun!), it was just a coincidence that the terrorist act fell on the day a Siege of Boston re-enactment was happening. All those people signed up to be measles ridden Brits for the show.
My thoughts exactly, EvilHomer. Though at least they didn't shoot at random civilians like the LAPD.
|Vicious - 2013-04-22 |
A stupid comes across the sky. It has happened before, but there is nothing to compare it to now.
|Jet Bin Fever - 2013-04-22 |
So once they have this ability, does it ever go away?
This isn't new for Boston.
Don't read this while operating a killdozer.
Those were the days.
| Register or login To Post a Comment|