Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-19-2013, 08:42   #21
costanza187
I like Macs
 
costanza187's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: =^..^= Litter Box
Posts: 11,180
I think at this point, if you had a bong sitting on your coffee table they really wouldn't care. They have a specific objective in mind.
__________________
I'm so much cooler online.
costanza187 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:44   #22
tarpleyg
Senior Member
 
tarpleyg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: North Carolina
Posts: 4,401
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
As a practical matter, you have no choice but to let the officers search. The situation is an exigent one and their actions would be deemed reasonable should it come to some sort of litigation.

To the GTers who would tell the officers they couldn't enter, well, should you ever be in that actual situation let us all know how it works out for you.
This is what I was looking for. So, exigent circumstance would apply here even though the scope is so broad?

As for all the "I have nothing to hide" crowd...stop it already. It does not matter if you have nothing to hide or not. It's precisely that attitude that has gotten us this far with our rights.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
tarpleyg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:48   #23
P99er
AKA PPQ'er
 
P99er's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: My own little world
Posts: 772
Quote:
Originally Posted by tarpleyg View Post
As for all the "I have nothing to hide" crowd...stop it already. It does not matter if you have nothing to hide or not. It's precisely that attitude that has gotten us this far with our rights.
Quote:
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me--and there was no one left to speak for me.
.....
__________________
.
"I cannot sit and watch a lady diminish her qualities to the lowest common denominator. I just can't do that" - Jerry Lewis on female comics


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.
P99er is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:50   #24
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 16,870
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
As a practical matter, you have no choice but to let the officers search. The situation is an exigent one and their actions would be deemed reasonable should it come to some sort of litigation.

To the GTers who would tell the officers they couldn't enter, well, should you ever be in that actual situation let us all know how it works out for you.
Just out of curiosity..

About 600K residents in Boston (not including suburbs).

Assume 4 people per household = about 150K homes.

1/150k = .0000067

This means each house (assuming he is even in a house) has a 0.00067% chance of having said person of interest.

How do you justify that with a 0.00067% of finding something/someone you are looking for is reasonable?

Would you say that the FDA should approve a drug that has a 0.00067% chance of working as indicated?

Would you accept ammunition for your officers that had a 0.00067% function rate?

Lets look at the opposite. You have a 99.99933% chance of the suspect NOT being in a house.

I am trying to see here how you define doing something with a 0.00067% chance of success as "reasonable."

I guess you think playing the lotto is a "reasonable" way to earn an income too?
__________________
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:58   #25
ChiefWPD
Senior Member
 
ChiefWPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wellfleet MA
Posts: 3,140
DanaT, as a practical matter the law enforcement people have few options when faced with the facts as we know them. They had just engaged in a prolonged gunfight (with explosives used against them) with two men whom they believed killed at least one officer that evening and were likely responsible for a major crime (the marathon bombing) only a few days ago.

We can wax philosophically about whether law officers should/should not be allowed to act in this manner. Particularly from the safety of our chairs in front of our computers. However, until someone comes up with a reasonable alternative to conducting house to house searches for the perpetrator of this type of crime, such searches will be conducted.

If I were responsible for the actions of officers under my command, given the same situation, I would order them to conduct house to house searches.
__________________
Chief WPD

Last edited by ChiefWPD; 04-19-2013 at 08:59..
ChiefWPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:59   #26
RenoF250
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,741
I think I would tell them I am willing to help them confirm that I am not under duress and the person they are looking for is not here but you cannot search my house. I might even walk them through but no bed flipping etc.
RenoF250 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:04   #27
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 10,025
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Just out of curiosity..

About 600K residents in Boston (not including suburbs).

Assume 4 people per household = about 150K homes.

1/150k = .0000067

This means each house (assuming he is even in a house) has a 0.00067% chance of having said person of interest.

How do you justify that with a 0.00067% of finding something/someone you are looking for is reasonable?

Would you say that the FDA should approve a drug that has a 0.00067% chance of working as indicated?

Would you accept ammunition for your officers that had a 0.00067% function rate?

Lets look at the opposite. You have a 99.99933% chance of the suspect NOT being in a house.

I am trying to see here how you define doing something with a 0.00067% chance of success as "reasonable."

I guess you think playing the lotto is a "reasonable" way to earn an income too?
That is quite a straw man you set up there. Suffice it to say they aren't searching 150,000 houses, they were searching houses in the immediate vicinity of where they last saw the bomber in Watertown.
czsmithGT is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:06   #28
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,649
It seems like most folks would be able to tell - by the look on the homeowners face - if there was an armed terrorist inside the house.

If the homeowner looks calm and collected and tells the officers - everything here is good - that should be good enough - move on to the next house.

Now if the homeowner looks very upset - sweaty - scared - in fear for their life - blinking and making strange faces - but saying - everything here is OK (wink wink wink)

Then maybe they step back and put this house under surveillance.

Just forcing your way in to every home - with or without permission is wrong - if handled this way people should lose their jobs.

Last edited by Z71bill; 04-19-2013 at 09:07..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:08   #29
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 16,870
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
DanaT, as a practical matter the law enforcement people have few options when faced with the facts as we know them. They had just engaged in a prolonged gunfight (with explosives used against them) with two men whom they believed killed at least one officer that evening and were likely responsible for a major crime (the marathon bombing) only a few days ago.

We can wax philosophically about whether law officers should/should not be allowed to act in this manner. Particularly from the safety of our chairs in front of our computers. However, until someone comes up with a reasonable alternative to conducting house to house searches for the perpetrator of this type of crime, such searches will be conducted.

If I were responsible for the actions of officers under my command, given the same situation, I would order them to conduct house to house searches.
You still have not addressed the 99.9993% chance of being WRONG. You have only addressed fear and speculation.

I dont have one doubt that you would order your officers to do the same.

But if we follow you line of reasoning with a 1/150K chance of finding what you are looking for, lets expand it.

The USA has a 4.7/100000 murder rate. Why not allow this for murder suspect searches? You have a much greater probability of finding one of them at 4.7/100000 than you do with 1/1500000.

These are the same tactics used be despots the world over.
__________________
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:10   #30
cgjane
Senior Member
 
cgjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
You still have not addressed the 99.9993% chance of being WRONG. You have only addressed fear and speculation.

I dont have one doubt that you would order your officers to do the same.

But if we follow you line of reasoning with a 1/150K chance of finding what you are looking for, lets expand it.

The USA has a 4.7/100000 murder rate. Why not allow this for murder suspect searches? You have a much greater probability of finding one of them at 4.7/100000 than you do with 1/1500000.

These are the same tactics used be despots the world over.
so what are you saying?

dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
__________________
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Last edited by cgjane; 04-19-2013 at 09:10..
cgjane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:10   #31
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 16,870
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
That is quite a straw man you set up there. Suffice it to say they aren't searching 150,000 houses, they were searching houses in the immediate vicinity of where they last saw the bomber in Watertown.
Have you read the news lately? Like this am?

They talk about how this has expanded to Boston and not just Watertown.

And if I have set up such a strawman and lets say they had a 5% chance of catching him, Bayes successful run theorem says that by now they they should have had nearly a 99% success in finding him.

Use a P of 0.05 and n of 70 and see what the probability of success is.
__________________
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.

Last edited by DanaT; 04-19-2013 at 09:11..
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:13   #32
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 16,870
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjane View Post
so what are you saying?

dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
__________________
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:13   #33
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 54,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by P99er View Post
.....
Shouldn't that be. . .

"First they came for the Terrorists, but I wasn't a Terrorist, so I didn't ask if I was being detained."????
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:14   #34
cgjane
Senior Member
 
cgjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
apples to oranges-raised-on-the-moon-to-eat-human-beings-while-we-sleep-by-aliens
__________________
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
cgjane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:17   #35
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 54,389
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
Nice use of stats to misrepresent your case. LOL

They didn't search ONE house. So your .0000383223% doesn't wash. There is a low probability PER HOUSE. Heck, your math was bad because it's Watertown, not all of Boston.

As Chief has said, there are times even the SC says, "No, you gotta let this go for the common good." This is then.

Shockingly, this would have been FAR more acceptable 150 years ago, when rights were collective and responsibilities individual. It's already been stated they have a specific thing to look for. While I'm usually hyper-anti-government, this is perfectly Constitutionally acceptable.
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:18   #36
Rabid Rabbit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,222
iven the same situation and not just we're looking for a B&E suspect, I'd escort them through the house so they can get on with finding the really bad guy. I can see where refusal could be interpreted as "the bad guy is here" and I find 200 cops surounding my house while the bad guy gets away.
Rabid Rabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:19   #37
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 11,649
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
It does seem like - what is reasonable for a citizen and reasonable for government are two different things.

It's for your own safety that we break down your door - knock you to the floor and search your home.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:22   #38
ChiefWPD
Senior Member
 
ChiefWPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wellfleet MA
Posts: 3,140
DanaT:

"Bayes successful run theorem" is of no interest to the law officers looking for a person who, I suggest, could be described as a homicidal maniac.

Should a person refuse to permit a team of officers to enter their residence it most likely would be due to either; a strongly held belief in their inviolate constitutional rights to be free from such a search, or, due to the fact that the killer is inside the residence and the home resident is facing some sort of threat not to permit law officers to enter.

I see this thread heading downhill rapidly, so I'll simply try to explain that under certain limited situations basic constitutional protections don't apply. Should officers run into a person who disagrees with this, the proper place to parse the matter is before a judge. I would not debate the matter "in the street" with anyone. There is no time and the situation far too volatile.

I am confident that a court would rule that the use of force to gain entry would be acceptable under the circumstances the officers faced.
__________________
Chief WPD

Last edited by ChiefWPD; 04-19-2013 at 09:23..
ChiefWPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:23   #39
Phaze5ive
Senior Member
 
Phaze5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Land of Teddy Bears
Posts: 754
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjane View Post
so what are you saying?

dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
or search for him without violating the rights of the people unless you have really good evidence to suggest that he is where you want to search.

Sent from my phone.
Phaze5ive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:25   #40
Jim85IROC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 427
My answer would be simple.

"I have nothing to hide, I am not harboring this criminal, and I have not seen this criminal. However, I have rights that are protected under the 4th amendment that I expect to remain intact. If you choose to search my home and property, it will be without my consent."
Jim85IROC is online now   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply


Tags
arrogance of ignorance, brownshirts, jbterrific, no court needed, statists, the usual suspects
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:08.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,131
300 Members
831 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31