This REALLY Concerns Me.

[Ken]

So, Davidlastink, you a lawyer? Law student? Just wondering......

[Ken]

How would you have handled the search?

Certainly NOT by demanding entry into private homes and forcibly removing occupants who were clearly NOT suspects - at gunpoint - from their homes and herding them outside to be searched by waiting officers. Such actions violate almost every protection afforded by the Fourth Amendment. THIS IS EXACTLY the kind of liberty for security trade that our founders sought to avoid. Absolutely no different than the British going door-to-door in Massachusetts searching for weapons and anti-Crown sympathizers in 1775.

How? Perhaps by knocking on doors and ASKING PERMISSION TO SEARCH? Perhaps by leading those occupants who consented away from the home without searching their persons WITHOUT ANY LAWFUL REASON. Perhaps by REQUESTING anyone who denied such permission to step outside to be quietly questioned about whether or not a suspect was inside holding anyone hostage? If hostages were present, this method would have posed no greater risk to them than did police storming the house.

[Geek]

The 4th amendment is in as much jeopardy as the 2nd, which implies the entire Bill of Rights is going down the tubes. I hope lawsuits follow. The law needs to be clear. You should not be able to send SWAT teams into every private home in an entire neighborhood or town. To do so risks getting lots of innocent people killed.

[Mazer]

The passing of the Patriot Act allows this

[Rick]

Which section of the act authorizes that? I've read it and the USA Freedom Act passed in 2015 and I didn't interpret anything that was remotely close.

[crashdive123]

The passing of the Patriot Act allows this

Actually, it does not. There is plenty of evidence of the shredding of the 4th Amendment (United States v. Leon, Kentucky v. King and others), the warentless searches such as took place in this case are not covered under the Patriot Act.

[hayshaker]

because we say little and do nothing we get what we deserve mabey.
hurricane katrina was used to sieze lawabiding peoples weapons.
then there was sandy hoax .oklahoma city and 911 both had absolute sweeping
police state powers Bills that were written way before the incidents ever took place.
people have been so da**&^ brainwashed to go sniveling to govt to keep them safe
or at least that's the propaganda spin msm and the govt tell us . steal all our liberties
but please god keep us safe it make me want to puke . grow a pair allready
and stop giving and asking permission from the nanny state.

[crashdive123]

Who the heck was that little rant aimed at?

[Rick]

I'm not sure what you're inferring. Since the bills were written well before the incidents took place (you know bills are a matter of public record, right?) are you suggesting the government somehow created Hurricane Katrina? Or was the cause of the 911 catastrophe? Or that 26 people, mostly children, did not die at Sandy Hook Elementary School? And can you further explain which liberties were stolen? Those liberties would be found in the Bill of Rights so did we lose one or two I'm not aware of? And you do know that you have an obligation to grow a pair as well instead of just merely complaining? What have you done lately to prevent all these things from happening? If your answer is nothing then you must be one of those brain washed snivelers as well living your life in the nanny state like the rest of us.

Just curious. You haven't been in the apple pie tonight have you?

[LowKey]

On a side note to this thread, what of Apple's decision not to comply on hacking its own security encryption on the i-phone belonging to one of the San Bernadino killers. Remember if they do it for one phone, it works on all of them.
http://www.apple.com/customer-letter/

Actually I think a court decision will likely compel them, but at least Apple can say it took the high road.

[tundrabadger]

Y'know, when you refer to the murder of 20 little children as a "hoax", I'm probably going to disagree with whatever point you are trying to make on principle. Even if it's hyperbole. Or, you know, especially.