close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

Welcome to Glock Talk

Why should YOU join our Glock forum?

  • Converse with other Glock Enthusiasts
  • Learn about the latest hunting products
  • Becoming a member is FREE and EASY

If you consider yourself a beginner or an avid shooter, the Glock Talk community is your place to discuss self defense, concealed carry, reloading, target shooting, and all things Glock.

Door-to-door searches during manhunt

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by tarpleyg, Apr 19, 2013.

  1. costanza187

    costanza187 I like Macs

    7,644
    813
    May 10, 2003
    Indiana
    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.
     
  2. tarpleyg

    tarpleyg

    3,153
    1
    Aug 7, 2002
    North Carolina
    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.
     


  3. P99er

    P99er AKA PPQ'er

    1,416
    564
    Oct 21, 2001
    My own little world
    .....
     
  4. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    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?
     
  5. ChiefWPD

    ChiefWPD

    3,446
    538
    Dec 25, 2004
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  6. RenoF250

    RenoF250

    7,289
    1,115
    Feb 23, 2008
    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.
     
  7. czsmithGT

    czsmithGT

    11,026
    1,472
    Jan 8, 2004
    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.
     
  8. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,138
    2,277
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas
    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: Apr 19, 2013
  9. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    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.
     
  10. cgjane

    cgjane

    574
    2
    Nov 18, 2009
    Miami
    so what are you saying?

    dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  11. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  12. DanaT

    DanaT Pharaoh

    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?
     
  13. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    42,700
    2,810
    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    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."????
     
  14. cgjane

    cgjane

    574
    2
    Nov 18, 2009
    Miami
    apples to oranges-raised-on-the-moon-to-eat-human-beings-while-we-sleep-by-aliens
     
  15. Dennis in MA

    Dennis in MA Get off my lawn

    42,700
    2,810
    Aug 16, 2001
    Taunton, MA
    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.
     
  16. Rabid Rabbit

    Rabid Rabbit

    3,833
    201
    Nov 22, 2004
    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.
     
  17. Z71bill

    Z71bill

    15,138
    2,277
    Feb 19, 2007
    Texas
    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. :upeyes:
     
  18. ChiefWPD

    ChiefWPD

    3,446
    538
    Dec 25, 2004
    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.
     
    Last edited: Apr 19, 2013
  19. 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.
     
  20. Jim85IROC

    Jim85IROC

    430
    6
    Jan 26, 2013
    Vermont
    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."