GlockTalk.com
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 04-30-2013, 06:45   #601
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,281


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Context, sir, it's all about context.

Much discussion about exigent circumstances here and in other threads. You even took it into another forum.

Those familiar with the process have said that issue, exigent circumstances will be decided by the courts.

The rest of my paragraph you failed to quote established the link between court cases and exigent circumstances - context.
What will be decided by the courts? The LE here on this thread have said repeatedly that there is no controversy. They cited totality of circumstances.

I prefer LE to act within the law. That way there are no definitions to be broadened. In this case, if the definition is broadened, the people lose and the state wins. Yes, it is a zero sum game.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 06:56   #602
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Throughout this thread we've had LE telling me that these searches qualified. They mocked and maligned me for arguing differently.

Seems to me LE, at least on this thread, are convinced exigent circumstances existed. Why should case law be broadened? In fact, why even use the word "broadened"?
Perhaps to see how you would react to it. You did not disappoint.

But, really, you read the other cases. Your often voiced opinion is that they are narrow and do not cover any, in your opinion, any of the conditions surrounding Watertown. That is correct, isn't it? They are too narrow to apply to Watertown?

You know attorneys, some want to narrow the law, some want to broaden them when they think existing ones are too narrow. I've had to deal with both.

Again, I said, "I don't know."
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 06:57   #603
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
What will be decided by the courts?
The legality of the actual events in Watertown.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:00   #604
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The LE here on this thread have said repeatedly that there is no controversy. They cited totality of circumstances.

I prefer LE to act within the law. That way there are no definitions to be broadened. In this case, if the definition is broadened, the people lose and the state wins. Yes, it is a zero sum game.
How are you going to contribute to insuring that no definitions will be "broadened?"
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:09   #605
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,281


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Perhaps to see how you would react to it. You did not disappoint.
You're a sly one Russ. Gotta keep my eye on you.

Quote:
But, really, you read the other cases. Your often voiced opinion is that they are narrow and do not cover any, in your opinion, any of the conditions surrounding Watertown. That is correct, isn't it? They are too narrow to apply to Watertown?

You know attorneys, some want to narrow the law, some want to broaden them when they think existing ones are too narrow. I've had to deal with both.

Again, I said, "I don't know."
If exigent circumstances existed under established law, suits are filed and the searches upheld, nothing gets broadened. Has nothing to do with what attorneys want.

On the other hand, if LE acted outside of established law and the court must blaze a new trail into 4th Amendment infringements, the law gets broadened. If that's the case, would we have attorneys to blame or LE?

So I can't figure out where this talk of broadening the law comes from?
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 04-30-2013 at 07:12..
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:13   #606
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,281


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
The legality of the actual events in Watertown.
Why? Are they in doubt? The LE here with vast experience, commanders and supervisors, have told me with the utmost confidence that exigent circumstances were present.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:30   #607
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
You're a sly one Russ. Gotta keep my eye on you.
Might be...
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
If exigent circumstances existed under established law, suits are filed and the searches upheld, nothing gets broadened. Has nothing to do with what attorneys want.

On the other hand, if LE acted outside of established law and the court must blaze a new trail into 4th Amendment infringements, the law gets broadened. If that's the case, would we have attorneys to blame or LE?

So I can't figure out where this talk of broadening the law comes from?
It is from your fear...

And your blatant obsession to blame LE...for everything.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:34   #608
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Why? Are they in doubt? The LE here with vast experience, commanders and supervisors, have told me with the utmost confidence that exigent circumstances were present.
You doubt them, don't you? Isn't that enough to warrant an investigation and presentation to a court?

You give no value to any opinions not in lock-step with yours, do you? So, why do you continue soliciting them?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 07:34   #609
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
How are you going to contribute to insuring that no definitions will be "broadened?"
Well...?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 08:43   #610
ChiefWPD
Senior Member
 
ChiefWPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wellfleet MA
Posts: 3,292
I’ve been following this thread for some time now. Lots of back and forth banter, with a fair amount of acrimony thrown in for good measure.

So, what the heck, here’s my observation;
The situation faced by the authorities immediately after the explosions were unprecedented. What was initially faced was an unknown level of threat by an unknown number of people. Difficult decisions directly relating to public safety had to be made, quickly and with the limited information they had on hand, by the people who we put in positions which makes them responsible for their actions. I suspect we will be debating those decisions for some time to come.

I’ve been involved in a number of searches during my forty-one years in law enforcement (some for missing people; Alzheimer victims, young children, older folks, some for armed individuals fleeing a crime scene). During the event those involved do their best to figure out what their best course of action should be. Such situations are almost invariably highly fluid, confusing, frustrating, time consuming and manpower intensive. After the event everyone finds out what they should have done.

I can honestly say that during the event in question there were actions taken by the authorities that, in hindsight, could have been handled better. I can also state, given the facts available at the time, that I would have done the same things.
__________________
Chief WPD
ChiefWPD is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:30   #611
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Boston's Door-to-Door Searches Weren't Illegal, Even Though They Looked Bad
Quote:
The ACLU agreed. In a phone interview Monday, Carol Rose, executive director of the ACLU of Massachusetts, told The Atlantic Wire that her organization was in contact with attorneys for the city, state, and the Department of Homeland Security on Friday. While the organization was concerned about how open-ended the request seemed to be, it was assured that the order was voluntary and that no one would be arrested if he or she left home in the midst of it.

Rose said that the organization had received a number of concerned comments from people about the searches that took place, including some from residents of Watertown. None, however, from people whose homes had been searched.

"Courts look at it differently when there's a threat of public safety than if the police just want to search," the ACLU's Rose pointed out. She noted a situation several years ago in which the Boston police wanted to conduct door-to-door searches seeking out illegal firearms. In that case, the ACLU spoke out against the proposal, and it was dropped.
Those are select snips from the linked article.

It is balanced, a good read. Please, do read the entire piece...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:36   #612
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Another article...
Quote:
A Post Constitutional Republic ? – Watertown Police State Action Sets Dangerous Precedent if Left Unchallenged….
Quote:
Under the premise expressed by Law Enforcement of “exigent circumstances” the U.S. Constitution’s 4th amendment deserves a revisit.

At the time, the Boston police department and federal agents were barely criticized, but now many are concerned about the dangerous precedent that could lead to more police searches using the rationale of ‘exigent circumstances’ as an excuse.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 09:43   #613
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
And another...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:01   #614
racerford
Senior Member
 
racerford's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: DFW area
Posts: 5,108


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
so an administration pinhead says something and everyone in any level of Government must be the same.

Does that mean everyone who distrusts Government is a another Timothy McVeigh ?
I didn't say the bolded, actually I said the contrary.

You said " from the highest person in the chain of command down to the greenest rookie, ", that is all inclusive. You say they are not waiting to trample rights. I am saying there are people waiting for a tragedy to pass laws (and do other things, executive orders anyone) to restrict/trample our rights. I saw a number of police chiefs, mayors, governors, senators, representatives, and the President do just exactly that.

I agreed with you that the vast(?) majority of those in government have no ill intent to trample our rights. However, some do. Unfortunately they are the ones with the most power, and visibility.
racerford is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:17   #615
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Divides - Column by Jim Davies.
Quote:
Below is a photograph of a happy cop.

He's happy because at the end of a trying day, his team accomplished its mission; a suspected murderer had been arrested. He's also happy because behind him, a crowd of local residents, whom he thinks he “protects and serves,” is applauding him and his comrades for a job well done.

That doesn't often happen. As Gilbert & Sullivan wrote as long ago as 1879 (when cops generally were a good deal better liked than today), “A policeman's lot is not a happy one.” But these residents of Watertown, MA were glad, on the evening of April 19th 2013, that the team had succeeded, and they showed their appreciation, and the cops lapped it up. However politely their victims may interact at a traffic stop, they must know full well that under the surface, there is deep resentment simmering; but here, spontaneous applause broke out.
Another piece...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:30   #616
alitke15
Member
 
alitke15's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 65
It's funny to see so many posts saying that the "need to catch (safety) overrides a constitutional right". That is the exact theory anti gunners are using. There is zero reason to give up a right. To have liberty requires the possibility of harm. The police can do their job without violating rights.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
alitke15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:40   #617
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,281


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
I’ve been following this thread for some time now. Lots of back and forth banter, with a fair amount of acrimony thrown in for good measure.

So, what the heck, here’s my observation;
The situation faced by the authorities immediately after the explosions were unprecedented. What was initially faced was an unknown level of threat by an unknown number of people. Difficult decisions directly relating to public safety had to be made, quickly and with the limited information they had on hand, by the people who we put in positions which makes them responsible for their actions. I suspect we will be debating those decisions for some time to come.

I’ve been involved in a number of searches during my forty-one years in law enforcement (some for missing people; Alzheimer victims, young children, older folks, some for armed individuals fleeing a crime scene). During the event those involved do their best to figure out what their best course of action should be. Such situations are almost invariably highly fluid, confusing, frustrating, time consuming and manpower intensive. After the event everyone finds out what they should have done.

I can honestly say that during the event in question there were actions taken by the authorities that, in hindsight, could have been handled better. I can also state, given the facts available at the time, that I would have done the same things.
That is similar to the logic used to seize guns post Katrina.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 10:58   #618
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 44,659
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
I’ve been following this thread for some time now. Lots of back and forth banter, with a fair amount of acrimony thrown in for good measure.

So, what the heck, here’s my observation;
The situation faced by the authorities immediately after the explosions were unprecedented. What was initially faced was an unknown level of threat by an unknown number of people. Difficult decisions directly relating to public safety had to be made, quickly and with the limited information they had on hand, by the people who we put in positions which makes them responsible for their actions. I suspect we will be debating those decisions for some time to come.

I’ve been involved in a number of searches during my forty-one years in law enforcement (some for missing people; Alzheimer victims, young children, older folks, some for armed individuals fleeing a crime scene). During the event those involved do their best to figure out what their best course of action should be. Such situations are almost invariably highly fluid, confusing, frustrating, time consuming and manpower intensive. After the event everyone finds out what they should have done.

I can honestly say that during the event in question there were actions taken by the authorities that, in hindsight, could have been handled better. I can also state, given the facts available at the time, that I would have done the same things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
That is similar to the logic used to seize guns post Katrina.
That? What "That"?
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:09   #619
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Caught in the Middle
Posts: 42,281


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
That? What "That"?
"That" is the essence of his post. Highlighted in blue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
I’ve been following this thread for some time now. Lots of back and forth banter, with a fair amount of acrimony thrown in for good measure.

So, what the heck, here’s my observation;
The situation faced by the authorities immediately after the explosions were unprecedented. What was initially faced was an unknown level of threat by an unknown number of people. Difficult decisions directly relating to public safety had to be made, quickly and with the limited information they had on hand, by the people who we put in positions which makes them responsible for their actions. I suspect we will be debating those decisions for some time to come.

I’ve been involved in a number of searches during my forty-one years in law enforcement (some for missing people; Alzheimer victims, young children, older folks, some for armed individuals fleeing a crime scene). During the event those involved do their best to figure out what their best course of action should be. Such situations are almost invariably highly fluid, confusing, frustrating, time consuming and manpower intensive. After the event everyone finds out what they should have done.

I can honestly say that during the event in question there were actions taken by the authorities that, in hindsight, could have been handled better. I can also state, given the facts available at the time, that I would have done the same things.
I'm curious what is meant by this portion of it:

Quote:
I can honestly say that during the event in question there were actions taken by the authorities that, in hindsight, could have been handled better. I can also state, given the facts available at the time, that I would have done the same things.
What things would he have done the same? Lots of "things" were done.

"could have been handled better" is a nice way to put it.
__________________
“If Thomas Jefferson thought taxation without representation was bad, he should see how it is WITH representation.”

Rush Limbaugh

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 04-30-2013 at 11:11..
certifiedfunds is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-30-2013, 11:49   #620
ChiefWPD
Senior Member
 
ChiefWPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wellfleet MA
Posts: 3,292
I see the potential in this thread for an endless loop of back and forth parrying. There are those who view the actions of the authorities during the Boston incident reasonable under the circumstances they faced. Others believe that fundamental constitutional rights were trampled.

As there appears to be no hope of coming to some reasoned conclusion to the debate outlined in this thread it would seem that only the results of some independent court inquiry might possibly satisfy the majority of those concerned with the police actions. Yet, my guess is, none will be forthcoming as those actions, as I understand the law, were within the constraints currently imposed on law enforcement.

Peace to all.

__________________
Chief WPD
ChiefWPD 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 13:10.




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


Users Currently Online: 963
270 Members
693 Guests

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