marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Probable cause for what? You act like the presence, somewhere, of a single criminal overrides the bill of rights in an entire city.
What uncritical, useless apologia.
"I've got mine so FU!"
Last edited:
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
Boston....was there exigent circumstance?
- Thread starter SavageOne
- Start date
Probable cause for what? You act like the presence, somewhere, of a single criminal overrides the bill of rights in an entire city.
What uncritical, useless apologia.
"I've got mine so FU!"
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
there, fixed it for you.
Nearly all cities have legal authority to close businesses and streets, most states can enact emergency powers for a state of emergency. The feds did declare a state of emergency, that gives constitutional authority to suspend habeus corpus if required.
in 1906 during the emergency after the San Francisco earthquake General Funston and Mayor Schmitz declared anyone caught looting would be shot on sight, this is hardly an unprecedented action that defines a new extreme of government overreach.
crazydude6030
Regular Member
That is not at all what I think not what I said. Stop trying to put words in mouth.
I disagree with their actions as a whole, but that's me and I wasn't there. Let someone affected sue in courts and see where it goes.
I was pointing out what I have read regarding this... This event.
Had this happened to me I would have told them to pound sand. That's me and like i said I wasn't there.
All I can do is read what those who were their said. And from what I can tell those people largely agreed with and are okay with what went down
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Irrelevance alert. Changes nothing. The magnitude or heinousness of a crime committed by another doesn't change my rights. Try agin, sycophant.
WTF does an earthquake have to do with a criminal action? Complete irrelevance alert.
It's OK though, I don't expect better than appeal to tradition/two wrongs make a right from you.
Incidentally, the police (and other government services) after the 1906 earthquake were famously unable to do much of anything. Private citizens essentially took over their job for quite a while after the quake. So you can quote what some statist clown said until hell freezes over. It changes nothing.
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Nice try,
I didn't "put words" in your mouth. You're the one who brought up probable cause. If you're now saying that it was irrelevant of you to do so, I agree.
eye95
Well-known member
Anger is good.--Famous rights advocate Gordon Gecko.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
well obviously it does otherwise you wouldn't be so irrational
State of emergency
What makes it wrong to take additional steps during a time of public danger? define wrong? what makes your definition of "wrong" correct. I think you're wrong. bite me
the history does not bear that out, It's obvious you do not understand any history that doesn't match your agenda...
marshaul
Campaign Veteran
Rebuttal fail: ad hominem and nothing more. Try again.
Let's see if you're capable of following a syllogism: Violating the Constitution is wrong. Shooting looters on sight is in violation of the Constitution. Therefore, it is wrong to shoot looters on sight. QED. Try again.
Actually, it does very well. I wouldn't expect you to be familiar with that, however.
Incidentally, there were soldiers brought in to protect the Mint and a few other public buildings. These soldiers got in on the looting too! How many of them do you imagine were "shot on sight"? By whom, exactly?
lolololol. History fail. Try again.
Last edited:
crazydude6030
Regular Member
Nice try,.
I didn't "put words" in your mouth. You're the one who brought up probable cause. If you're now saying that it was irrelevant of you to do so, I agree.
Heh. This is clearly going no where. Enjoy
EMNofSeattle
Regular Member
it's great you can make a syllogism, but your premises must still be correct. courts have long ruled that states and the federal government can overcome a constitutional protection if there is a compelling state interest in doing so. this is the basis for cases too numerous to number.
allowing people to be harmed is wrong, citizens may be harmed by entering the city in a state of emergency, therefore allwoing citizens to enter a city in a state of emergency is wrong.
The letters of Captain Edward Ord are a good source of information. he reported exactly which units were involved in looting, and also mentioned that the majority of units he witnessed were not.
furthermore, in addition to guarding the mint and post office, they also assisted the Fire Department in isolating the fire, and in constructing shelters and homes for displaced individuals.
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
georg jetson
Regular Member
I think he just meant that they've done it... So they must have the authority.
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
double tap
Last edited:
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
1) "Probable cause" is not the phrase you are looking for. "Probable cause" is for arrests and I'm fairly certain the residents of Watertown weren't being arrested. Seized is another matter and I don't believe there was probable cause for a seizure either.
The phrase you seem to be searching for is "Reasonable Suspicion" and that means "A reasonable suspicion, supported by facts that _____ did ____.
2) We are not mixing metaphors. Stopping a man driving a BMW to "make sure he didn't steal it" is no different that pulling people out of their homes at gunpoint to "make sure they weren't being coerced or giving shelter to a fleeing criminal".
3) You ADMIT they crossed the line, ... well there's little more to say than that, I guess.
4) I didn't say they didn't have reason for concern, (what was it you said about 'putting words in [my] mouth"?
5) "you would have to have your head in the sand or some other dark place to think otherwise." Ad hominem attacks are for grade-school playgrounds, let's behave like adult men women and avoid them, shall we?
eye95
Well-known member
"Exigent circumstances" require probable cause, not reasonable suspicion. Exigent circumstances mean that the same circumstances that would support a warrant exist, but there is no time to get a warrant.
Since a warrant could not be issued for an entire town, exigent circumstances could not exist for it either. Exigent circumstances would be, for example, "We have probable cause to believe that that man murdered a cop and is now in THAT house. He will escape or, worse, harm the residents of THAT house if we do nothing or wait till we get a warrant. We must go in!"
"THAT house," not "the whole damned town."
Again, probable cause is required for exigent circumstances. That is a weightier requirement than mere reasonable suspicion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Since a warrant could not be issued for an entire town, exigent circumstances could not exist for it either. Exigent circumstances would be, for example, "We have probable cause to believe that that man murdered a cop and is now in THAT house. He will escape or, worse, harm the residents of THAT house if we do nothing or wait till we get a warrant. We must go in!"
"THAT house," not "the whole damned town."
Again, probable cause is required for exigent circumstances. That is a weightier requirement than mere reasonable suspicion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Fallschirjmäger
Active member
Thank you for the correction, eye. Probable cause is an even higher standard than merely a reasonable suspicion.
eye95
Well-known member
You're welcome.
However, it was not so much a correction as making sure that it was crystal clear that what they did in Boston was so undisputably an unconstitutional and tyrannical tactic. I am mortified that Boston, the birthplace of the Revolution that introduced the republican ideal, would roll over to tyranny so easily.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
However, it was not so much a correction as making sure that it was crystal clear that what they did in Boston was so undisputably an unconstitutional and tyrannical tactic. I am mortified that Boston, the birthplace of the Revolution that introduced the republican ideal, would roll over to tyranny so easily.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>
Last edited:
crazydude6030
Regular Member
I been thinking more about this and have been asking why so many there are just willin to accept it. I think it might be based on low firearm ownership and there fore they had little choice but to rely on the police to "save" them.
I base this on pure speculation and only thought about it when I read that some people in that area went to buy guns the next day.
I still want to see a law suit from one of them. I suspect based on current trends the courts will back the actions of the police.
eye95
Well-known member
If there is a lawsuit, I WILL contribute. I want the nation to know that there are a bunch of us who still love and will fight for the Republic.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<o>
sudden valley gunner
Regular Member
That is the reality of it.
Dumbfounds me that people think it's ok because SCOTUS says it's ok, without thinking about the documents that gives all of them any authority, which is a huge contributing factor to the acceptance of the ever increasing tyranny.