Boston Terrorist Search Shows Abuse of American’s Rights
by Big Dog on Apr 22, 2013 at 16:14 Political
[note]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. ~ Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution[/NOTE]
As one terrorist lay dead in Boston the other, his younger brother, was on the loose in Watertown Massachusetts. The police from many local, state and federal agencies descended on the town to find the accomplice to the deadly Boston Marathon Bombing. During the search the rights of the people were violated and very few objected or took a stand to prevent the intrusion of government into their lives.
Parts of Boston were locked down. Businesses were told not to open and residents were told to stay inside their homes. There is no indication that any order, executed in accordance with Massachusetts law, was implemented. People were told to stay put and they did. Was martial law declared? Why were people not allowed to move freely about town and go about their lives?
Then the police conducted a house to house search for the terror suspect. The police are well within their duties to knock on doors and ask if there is a problem or if people have seen the suspect. They are free to ask people if it is OK for them to come inside and look around.
But people are free to say no. Unfortunately, it appears as if people were not really given the chance. The police were outside with firearms pointed at doors and people were asked if it was OK to look around. No one can give free consent when faced with armed people. It amounts to coercion.
There are reports that at least one household told police that they did not consent to a search. Those folks were marched out of their house while the police conducted a search of the premises. This is a violation of the Fourth Amendment to the US Constitution. Without a validly executed warrant the police have no right to enter someone’s home (barring a few limited exigent circumstances).
Forcing people from their homes at gunpoint (or even not at gunpoint) in order to search that home after the occupant has denied consent is a violation of the Constitution and those who did this should be held to account for what they did.
[note]Article XIV. Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures, of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions. All warrants, therefore, are contrary to this right, if the cause or foundation of them be not previously supported by oath or affirmation; and if the order in the warrant to a civil officer, to make search in suspected places, or to arrest one or more suspected persons, or to seize their property, be not accompanied with a special designation of the persons or objects of search, arrest, or seizure: and no warrant ought to be issued but in cases, and with the formalities prescribed by the laws. ~Commonwealth of Massachusetts Constitution[/note]
The police did a great job hunting down the bad guy and this is in no way an indictment of their work in that regard BUT there is no excuse for violating the rights of citizens in order to catch a bad guy no matter how dangerous he is.
Our rights are enshrined and protected by the US Constitution (and as shown above, by the Massachusetts Constitution) to prevent these things from happening. To dismiss this as some extraordinary circumstance allows government to define or invent all kinds of circumstances in which they can ignore our rights.
And since people in Boston did not push back the police now know they can get away with further erosion of the people’s rights.
It is a sad time in America when the government violates rights. It is even sadder that people allow it to happen.
Does it bother anyone that the government can shut down an American city and infringe on the rights of Americans to find one terrorist but refused to send help to Americans in Benghazi where it would have been appropriate to secure the place and help Americans?
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[jpsub]
Tags: boston, constitution, fourth amendment, infringe, lies
Under these circumstances I would have no objection to them searching my home. As far as shutting down businesses and telling people to stay indoors was common sense when a terrorist is on the loose. They were trying to save peoples’ lives. There are things in our government that are very wrong and many rights are being taken away, but in this case, I think what they did was right.
And as long as you consent to the search then it is fine because if you consent YOUR rights were not violated. However, that is a choice YOU get to make. If your neighbor decides that he does not want his house searched then the police have no authority to search that home. If you do not object fine then let them search if your neighbor objects then they do not drag him out at gunpoint and search his home. That is a violation of the Constitution.
As far as shutting the city down, if they did it under some legal authority and followed that then fine. But if they just gave an order they violated the rights of the people to move freely and they affected the commerce of business. Where do they draw the line? Do they get to shut it all down because a person robs a bank and shoots a few folks? A child is anbducted so they shut down the city?
If Massachusetts did not have such anti Constitutional gun laws then more folks would be armed and the issue of a dangerous criminal would not shut down a city because he would not want to stick around where people are able to kill him.
“They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Ben Franklin
BTW, there are terrorists on the loose each and every day. They are in many places and could do bad at any moment. Would we shut everything down because there is a terrorist on the loose? It is never OK to take our rights away or violate them. We have them to keep the government from doing such things. That mindset is why they think it is OK to take firearms (which they confiscated from people who let them into their homes) or pass laws banning firearms. It is why they have no problem telling people they can’t pray in a school or have a religious item hanging in a courthouse.
Suppose the government decided that Christians were no longer allowed to have any open display of their religion and all Christian churches had to be shut down because a few radical Christians bombed an abortion clinic. Maybe government would start detaining all Christians in the area because one or two blew up that clinic so they could ensure that there are no more radical Christians. Suppose they decided that they would arrest any Christian who went to church because they might be a bomber. At what point would you say government went too far and would it be OK for the Jews and Muslims to say “go ahead and detain Christians, I have no objection to that and even though you are trampling on their rights, in this case you are right to do so?
I happen to not agree, the entire search was a SNAFU from the start.
They took the entire populace of Boston out of the search by forcing them to stay inside their homes and away from windows. Yes they were pointing automatic rifles at people and telling them to get away from the window. As soon as they lifted the lockdown, which BTW originates in the prision system, a citizen inspecting their own property found the guy.
There is video of police violating people’s 4th Amendment rights at gunpoint. Banging on someone’s door, shoving a rifle in their face, ordering them from their home, entering the premisis, and searching their person is terribly excessive. The only case this might be reasonable is if they had specific and credible information that the suspect was inside.
The sad part is that Bostonians actually cheered this violation of their rights.
And in MD news the courts have found that requiring felons/criminals to register their firearms violates their 5th Amendment rights agaisnt self incrimination. Screw the 2nd Amendment rights of its law abiding residents.