"I'm so happy they're doing their jobs"

71 Responses

  1. JustMe says:

    Indeed. It seems we are expected to be grateful for such "rescuing". Sadly, not one person was arrested for refusing to leave their home. How far we have fallen.

  2. Geek Chick says:

    That just made me ill.

  3. aczarnowski says:

    At least they didn't shoot up two ladies delivering papers or burn the boat down around the guy?

  4. Bob Brown says:

    I see I'm going to have to get some steel doors. {sigh}

  5. Jim Kimmons says:

    The book "Nation of Cowards" is all about gun control, not from either side, but an explanation of how the fear of the populace creates pressure to control guns, even when overwhelming evidence shows that it doesn't help.

    Fear is what this is all about, and the government wants to build on that fear, as it builds government power by growing the perception of the cowardly populace that the government will protect them. So, you see the fearful gladly giving up their liberties for falsely-perceived protection from harm.

  6. sigmadog says:

    For footage from the old Soviet Russia, it looks pretty modern… oh, wait…

  7. freedomfan says:

    Wow! That was disheartening. It implies that typical Americans don't care about their liberty and are actually thankful for abuses of state power, as long as the state is willing to provide the rational justification: "Terrorism! Ooga, booga, booga!"

    Of course, there is at least a chance that some residents were rationally dubious about the government's actions here and that they expressed their doubt or anger on camera. We might not have seen that if the news crew decided those reactions didn't fit with the police-taking-every-measure-to-keep-you-safe template story they were running.

  8. Brett Middleton says:

    I wonder if the cops happened to seize any guns they saw lying about in those homes. Just like Katrina, the situation seems like a good opportunity for some ad-hoc victim disarmament.

  9. MattS says:

    JustMe,

    "Sadly, not one person was arrested for refusing to leave their home."

    Is this because no one refused to leave or someone refused but wasn't arrested?

  10. Shane says:

    Does anyone know if the police had warrants?

  11. zaq.hack says:

    "Every single one of them apologized …"

    So, it's okay.

    Next time, they need to say, "Papers please," and Boston will be okay with it.

  12. Shane says:

    @Matt I think that if someone refused to leave, arrest would have been the least of their worries.

  13. Matt says:

    @Shane — yes, they had "warrants"…they drew them using pretty crayons, and they even colored inside the lines, too!

  14. Shane says:

    @Matt u mad bra?

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized

    If they followed that ^ then they were legal.

  15. JR says:

    @Shane
    You forgot the definition of Probable Cause

  16. Tyler says:

    There were no warrants, there was "consent" .. then again, who says no to 10 men dressed in SWAT gear with guns drawn while shouting at you to put your hands up and walk outside?

  17. MattS says:

    Shane,

    "@Matt I think that if someone refused to leave, arrest would have been the least of their worries."

    I don't dispute that. But that sill leaves the question unanswered. Do we know for a fact that no one resisted? Is there any evidence for this other than the lack of arrests?

  18. GauntletWizard says:

    I doubt it'd work, but I'd love to see these searches tried not just under the Fourth, but also the Third; I would argue that clearing out an area such that SWAT teams can raid them/establish a cordon counts as "Quartering Troops" for the purposes of the third, though I doubt the courts would see it my way.

  19. Lucy says:

    I am not a cop hater by nature, but to borrow an analogy, these guys viewed scared citizens like a 13 year old boy views a tube sock.

  20. Shane says:

    @JR hence the question on whether they had warrants? I am guessing not. Consent to search is a different ballgame and a very bad one for the person consenting.

    In the gun community there is often the question of what to do in the face of gun confiscation. The people that haven't thought about what that means usually use something centered around " … cold dead hands". This is a pointless way of dealing with this, because the operative word is "dead".

    If I were in this community in Boston at this time I would have simply asked for a warrant, and if one were not produced I would have simply said I don't consent to this search. Then I would have gotten up at gun point and left my home. Any other way would have left me shot and probably dead. And to be clear it would have appeared on the news something to the effect of " … a new terror suspect has been shot, he may have been involved with underground terror … blah blah blah" You get the point.

    Be smart when dealing with people with guns.

  21. Personanongrata says:

    The East German Stasi and the Soviet NKVD couldn't hold a candle to US SWAT terrorists.

  22. Fred says:

    Thank God the media and the ACLU have been on top of this.

  23. JR says:

    @Shane

    Sorry, I confused the comments of this post with those of the Temple, TX arrest. My own fault for trying to keep 12 tabs up and active at the same time.

  24. ShelbyC says:

    If there were warrants, we would have heard about them by now. Any searches done without consent (and there surely were some, gived the 20-block search area) were illegal. But nothing can be done about them.

  25. eh says:

    There were no warrants, there was "consent" .. then again, who says no to 10 men dressed in SWAT gear with guns drawn while shouting at you to put your hands up and walk outside?

    Good questions. Did anybody say, "no," in Boston/Waterwhateverville?

  26. Grifter says:

    What is this I don't even….

    Sigh.

    "There might be a criminal somewhere, so we're going to search everywhere!"

  27. Clark says:

    Any searches done without consent (and there surely were some, gived the 20-block search area) were illegal. But nothing can be done about them.

    I am not a lawyer (I'm a doctor), but my understanding is that the only "remedy" (legal term) for an illegal search is the suppression of the evidence in a trial against you. So, for example, a cop can illegally search you, find out all manner of embarrassing things, put those in a police report and in the police log…and despite the fact that your secrets have been disclosed and your life ruined, your only compensation is that you can't be prosecuted.

    …or, rather, you CAN be prosecuted, but that evidence can't be used against you.

    I'm not clear on whether the police can then use the insights gleaned from the illegal; I think the doctrine is that they can, they just have to lie about it.

  28. gramps says:

    Thus far publicly unexplored: what of the Boston/Watertown residents, few as there may be, who had opportunity to arm themselves to protect against the actual terrorist should they lose the "pursuit lottery" and have him break into their home to hide. You end up with the SWAT team confronting an armed citizen. The citizen knows who the SWAT team is generally, but they do not know the citizen. It could get very messy.

  29. naught_for_naught says:

    "Toughts?"

    Do I have any thoughts? Well, let's hear what the people who were actually there and affected by this said.

    GUY WITH BABY: "It was a little stressful – seeing these guys pointing big guns, and you’re holding your daughter in your arms. Um, they’re doing the right thing. They’re trying to secure the neighborhood."

    GUY IN HAT: "They banged on the door. I looked up. I was shocked, and there was a gun, or two guns, or whatever pointing down at me — and the guys, and they said, ‘Get out! Get out!’ Said, 'OK' And I wanted to know do I get my shoes, and just 'Get out! Get out! – OK, alright.'"

    WOMAN WITH GLASSES: "It was terrifying, but every single one of them apologized for the inconvenience. It’s like I’m so happy they are doing their job. You have no idea."

    I'm going with lady in glasses. I’m so happy they are doing their job. You have no idea.

  30. SPQR says:

    Security theater writ large.

  31. We've lost the battle says:

    @naught: You and the lady with the glasses are the ones who have no idea. It is NOT the job of the police to drag innocent people out of their own homes AT GUNPOINT.

  32. naught_for_naught says:

    @We've lost the battle

    Reasonable people can disagree, but having just lived through this myself when Christopher Dorner came to make his last stand in my neighborhood, I'm pretty sure that I have an idea. So I'm going to have to be a little rough with you hear and say, Go fish.

  33. zaq.hack says:

    After thinking about this most of the day, I have decided that I know what I would do. I would print copies of the 3rd, 4th, and 14th amendments and affix them to my door. I would then have a strategically placed camera filming them breaking said door when I refused to open it without warrant or probable cause.

    Similarly, a criminal trying to find safe harbor on my property might find it … prickly …

  34. MattS says:

    zaq.hack,

    "Similarly, a criminal trying to find safe harbor on my property might find it … prickly …"

    What, do you have trained security porcupines?

  35. Ancel De Lambert says:

    Yippee ki yay motherfucker.

  36. Ancel De Lambert says:

    @MattS he's got a launcher for it, too. Aimed at the door just like the cameras. He plans to win every AFHV for the next ten years. Get your wallet out Bergeron.

  37. delurking says:

    This cannot be real.

  38. Back in February there was a gunfight (not an random shooter scenario, these guys all knew each other) in my county. Two men were airlifted to the nearest metro area hospital, two were arrested, and one was in the wind.

    The missing man turned up at the local hospital to drop off his girlfriend and vanished again. The local cops did a room-to-room search of the hospital (not unreasonable in my eyes) and swept the surrounding woods but he was gone again. Other than an admonition not to try and apprehend the man ourselves and to keep any outbuildings locked when we weren't using them the cops told us to go about our lives and call them if we saw him and eventually caught the guy a few days later.

    Of course, unlike in Massachusetts, there's probably a shotgun or deer rifle in 90% of the homes here and a good chunk of us have carry permits for our pistols and being a local he knew that. There really wasn't any place for him to go.

  39. @Gramps: It probably would have ended like this…

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95475&page=1#.UXiOeuDXb4g

    h/t @RobertSWieland and @CatoInstitute on Twitter

  40. Waldo says:

    Not sure what is more depressing about that video. The cops busting down doors and pointing guns at citizens in their homes, the citizens who are so fearful and so conditioned to obey authority that they seem grateful, or the media glorifying unconstitutional violations of civil liberties by the police state.

  41. John David Galt says:

    I want our constitutional form of government back.

  42. princessartemis says:

    "Rescue" them, huh? From what? The guys pointing guns at them?

  43. zaq.hack says:

    MattS: It is not lawful to detain a porcupine against its will in my state, so, of course not. However, it still lawful to have a firearm, so that will have to suffice.

  44. En Passant says:

    John David Galt wrote Apr 24, 2013 @7:44 pm:

    I want our constitutional form of government back.

    Sorry, but it resigned to pursue a new career as a pirate. See next thread above for details.

  45. MattS says:

    zaq.hack,

    It may be illegal to detain a procupine against it's will, but what about voluntarily employing one as a security guard?

    Firearms aren't prickly so that leaves your comment unexplained.

  46. Mike B says:

    I have to be honest. Had I gotten a knock on my door, I don't know if I would have had the presence of mind to actually refuse. What I do know is that after I realized that I should have I would have been deeply ashamed that I didn't.

  47. naught_for_naught says:

    @Mike B

    " What I do know is that after I realized that I should have I would have been deeply ashamed that I didn't."

    I don't think you would unless you let yourself be cowed by all of the pundits who were no where near the events.

    I listened to remarks of a similar color when Christopher Donner was hiding in my neighborhood. Let me tell you. It's very different when it's happening right here, right now, threatening the safety of your family, then when you are digesting the story from a distance and running it though your world-view filter discussing it online.

    Take a minute and think about what was actually happening and how much uncertainty there was.

    You have at least two guys that had demonstrated a high tactical skill set. Your are not sure if there are more players and what other tricks they have in their bag. You do know that they have no problem with committing mass murder at the drop of the hat. In addition to detonating two bombs at a public event, they have car-jacked one person and killed an MIT cop in cold blood. They are somewhere in Watertown, a very small 4.2 square mile area. You don't know if they have taken hostages. You don't know if they have an arsenal stashed somewhere. You just know that they're out there, and the longer they are the greater the chances that something else really bad is going to happen.

    It is the job of the police to find these guys and secure the towns persons and property. What do you do? The police believe they have exigent circumstances which gives them the legal right to enter any residence where they believe these guys might be.

    Why on earth would you want to frustrate their efforts when you know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it? As you said, you wouldn't, and you shouldn't. This is not the time to make a Constitutional argument.

    Was it perfect? I'm sure it wasn't. Did they do there best to minimize the trauma? According to one interviewee, yes. Was it necessary? I think so. There is nothing shaming about cooperating with police officers in this kind of situation.

    Had the police not pursued these guys as hard as they did and someone gotten hurt as a result, there would have been a line of airstream trailers parked around the victim's block, each with a lawyer in it looking to represent the families and sue the cops and the city that sat back and did nothing. You know that's the truth.

    Like the woman said, I'm glad they did their job. If you weren't there you don't know, but as they say, there are no atheists in fox holes.

  48. princessartemis says:

    @naught, I think, for myself, I wouldn't have had an issue with letting cops in to look around in those circumstances. Just, not at gunpoint. There is no possibility of consent at that point.

  49. princessartemis says:

    To clarify, I don't see myself choosing to die on that hill, but the very fact that a gun is drawn and pointed at me removes consent from the equation.

    I hope they didn't do that to any veterans who might be triggered by seeing rifles pointed their way.

  50. a_random_guy says:

    naught_for_naught write: "It is the job of the police to find these guys and secure the towns persons and property. What do you do? The police believe they have exigent circumstances which gives them the legal right to enter any residence where they believe these guys might be. Why on earth would you want to frustrate their efforts when you know exactly what they are doing and why they are doing it?"

    You are right, in a sense, but you are overlooking one thing: I know that these guys are not in my house, so why do I need a SWAT team to confirm this?

    Yes, it's hard to know how one would have reacted, since we weren't actually there. However, there are people with a lot of "presence of mind". I would have hoped that, in a town of 30,000 people, at least one person would have told the SWAT team: "not here, thanks, unless you have a warrant", gone along when told to leave anyway, filmed the interaction and put it up on YouTube. The fact that not one single person did this is a sad, sad commentary on our society.