Boston Police want to search homes with no warrents

XHonusWagnerX - 11-19-2007 at 03:26 PM

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_...

Police to search for guns in homes
City program depends on parental consent
Email|Print| Text size – + By Maria Cramer
Globe Staff / November 17, 2007

Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.

The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.

In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.

If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.

The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders.
globe graphic Pilot neighborhoods in search program

"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.

"Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found."

But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people.

"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .

"I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case."

But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street.
more stories like this

A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week.

"There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said.

The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out.

Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute.
globe graphic Pilot neighborhoods in search program

"In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable," Davis said.

Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square.

If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges.

"A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion."

The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks.

One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting.

"What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' "

Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said.

Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.

St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program.

"We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said.

But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice.

Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said.

Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared.

"I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us."

Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did.

"We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said.

Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start."

upyerbum - 11-19-2007 at 03:43 PM

I really don't see a problem there, problems could arise though if the police begin resorting to scare tactics when the answer is no. I understand what they are trying to accomplish, but its sketchy territory.

clevohardcore - 11-19-2007 at 04:05 PM

Not at all. Search those unlawful teens. KIds at that age think they are invincealbe and the law protects them if they get caught. Ya not catch them and rid the streets of that illegal gun before it gets worse.

Six66Mike - 11-19-2007 at 04:55 PM

I dunno what's worse in America right now, unwarranted search in "ghetto's" (why not all homes, why discriminate when the kids shooting up schools are not from the poorest neighbourhoods?) or the forced vaccination program happening in Prince George County, Maryland.

If parents don't get the kids booster shots & catch them up to the vaccine schedule, they are being taken to court and possibly fined etc.

:thumbdown:

USA

gavin - 11-19-2007 at 04:56 PM

The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.

If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide

i dont see the problem if they have the owners of the homes blessing to search

newbreedbrian - 11-19-2007 at 06:35 PM

yeah, i think the problem is the police know how easy it is to intimidate you. alot of people don't know it's within their legal rights to refuse the search. the handful of weapons that are taken off the streets will easily be replaced the next week. band aid solution to score political points is all this is.

Six66Mike - 11-19-2007 at 07:34 PM

Simple question, why don't PARENTS keep an eye on their kids shit and look for weapons in their own house instead of inviting the cops in to do it?

DaveMoral - 11-19-2007 at 07:49 PM

Does anyone else think this is a steady march towards fascism? Seriously. It starts by introducing methods and ideas that people aren't knee-jerk opposed to, and gradually works towards getting the population to embrace the worst of state criminality. That's precisely how the National Socialists did it in Germany in the 30s.

To me this isn't much different from Mike Nutter's "stop and frisk" policy in Philly. The most amazing thing about that is it's seemingly even more innocuous because a black man is propogating the idea, and it has so much potential for just becoming racially motivated.

Worst part is, I'm not knee jerk reacting against the ideas proposed.

godabandonedme - 11-20-2007 at 03:24 AM

Stop letting the press get you all hpyed up over stupid shit. Obviously, police wouldn't need a warrent if consent was given by the owner of the house......so why not call it "Consensual searches in homes" as opposed to "Warrentless"?? Cause that doesn't sell papers or scare people. Same with the stop and frisk thing. Knock Knock, we do that every single day, hundreds of times a day. But something called the "Terry pat down for dangerous weapons plan" wouldn't sell papers....so it's oh my god stop an frisk? Ridiculous.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godabandonedme
Stop letting the press get you all hpyed up over stupid shit. Obviously, police wouldn't need a warrent if consent was given by the owner of the house......so why not call it "Consensual searches in homes" as opposed to "Warrentless"?? Cause that doesn't sell papers or scare people. Same with the stop and frisk thing. Knock Knock, we do that every single day, hundreds of times a day. But something called the "Terry pat down for dangerous weapons plan" wouldn't sell papers....so it's oh my god stop an frisk? Ridiculous.

well said

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 11:08 AM

This is a bad idea. What is the information based on that makes them want to go to the homes?

I think if thier is an outreach program where parents can call a local precinct and say, hey I think my kid has a gun, come out and check. Thats ok. But to randomly show up on a door step and say, mind if we come in... That is a very bad idea and can absolutely lead to worse situations that would be in violation of civil liberties. Overall, this gets a thumbs down from me.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyOwnWay
This is a bad idea. What is the information based on that makes them want to go to the homes?

I think if thier is an outreach program where parents can call a local precinct and say, hey I think my kid has a gun, come out and check. Thats ok. But to randomly show up on a door step and say, mind if we come in... That is a very bad idea and can absolutely lead to worse situations that would be in violation of civil liberties. Overall, this gets a thumbs down from me.

this would be all well and good assuming the parents care enough to do some sort of program but we all know that this is not the case.
if the owner of the household allows entry, then there should be no debate about this at all.
check into reality people.
there is no rights violations here.
stop with the paranoia in places where its uncalled for

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 11:38 AM

I'm not saying anything has been violated. But the tolerance of allowing police to come up to a doorstep warrantless and ask permission, presuming they leave when requested too, this can lead to serious consenquences. I'm not saying this act is illegal, but what this leads to. And the discrimination of how do you choose a home? Off hear say? Income? Neighborhood statistics? I see more damage than good that can come from this.

godabandonedme - 11-20-2007 at 11:44 AM

Hey, your kids a piece of shit an got caught at school with drugs. Or in a gang whatever. Gangs + drugs = guns and violence. Can we come in? No, ok no problem. Idiot is gona get caught doing something stupid at some point anyway. There is absolutely no violation of any rights here. There is a "outreach program" for things like this, it's called picking up the phone and calling 911. This isn't Germany circa 1938, relax. Cops do this stuff every single day. They are free to walk up to any house on the block and ask to search it, and you have every right to say no. To get a warrent they would have to have articuable facts of probable cause, but nothing says a cop can't just walk up to you and ask to search you, your vehicle, home etc. If your dumb enough to say yes knowing something illegal is there, you deserve to get locked up. Again, this is just bullshit media hype.

Voodoobillyman - 11-20-2007 at 12:01 PM

There is nothing wrong with this, if it's consensual, then a warrant does not matter. There is nothing new or infringing about this at all.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by godabandonedme
Hey, your kids a piece of shit an got caught at school with drugs. Or in a gang whatever. Gangs + drugs = guns and violence. Can we come in? No, ok no problem. Idiot is gona get caught doing something stupid at some point anyway. There is absolutely no violation of any rights here. There is a "outreach program" for things like this, it's called picking up the phone and calling 911. This isn't Germany circa 1938, relax. Cops do this stuff every single day. They are free to walk up to any house on the block and ask to search it, and you have every right to say no. To get a warrent they would have to have articuable facts of probable cause, but nothing says a cop can't just walk up to you and ask to search you, your vehicle, home etc. If your dumb enough to say yes knowing something illegal is there, you deserve to get locked up. Again, this is just bullshit media hype.

again, well said from someone who knows whats what

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 01:42 PM

Sadly, you are all missing the point. I never said anything about this being in any sort of violation.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyOwnWay
Sadly, you are all missing the point. I never said anything about this being in any sort of violation.

then what are you saying?

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBadVibes

Quote:

Originally posted by MyOwnWay
Sadly, you are all missing the point. I never said anything about this being in any sort of violation.

then what are you saying?

As I said in my earlier post... What this could lead to. The kind of warrantless action and possible discriminatory efforts for the "good of the cause". As I said, what is this walking up to someones doorstep based upon? What info? And could it lead to a more severe type of search based on police suspicion in the years to come?

If we allow police to randomly knock on doors asking to search where does the line get drawn over privacy and probable cause. You cay its ok, they're just asking. Fine, but whats makes them go to that doorstep and whats to stop them from picking a million homes. If a cop came to my doorstep and asked to look around, I'd be pissed. And I dont own any firearms. But what if they get a few. Then they get a supreme court ruling because out 100 homes 62 of them had a gun. Then the court says ok, if you think you have reason, just go on in the house.

Those are the things that can happen. What these types of "first steps" can lead to. I do not think this program is going to clean up streets or make neighborhoods safer. I see it as a very bad idea. Period.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 01:57 PM

all i ever hear is "what this or that can lead to"
and none of this sort of thing EVER leads to anything other then what it is
cant we cross a "what if" bridge when/if we get to it?

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 02:07 PM

The things I have mentioned are a real concern. The what if's are based on realistic scenarios. Why let it get that far? There is no other possible way for streets to improve than this method right here? There is no other non-evasive way of going about things? I'm not saying everythings fine. But I am saying this is one suggestion that can have far worse effects than the seemingly good.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyOwnWay
The things I have mentioned are a real concern. The what if's are based on realistic scenarios. Why let it get that far? There is no other possible way for streets to improve than this method right here? There is no other non-evasive way of going about things? I'm not saying everythings fine. But I am saying this is one suggestion that can have far worse effects than the seemingly good.

so whats your ideas to improve things then if this is so bad?

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 04:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBadVibes

Quote:

I'm going to let that question go. The article was posted. I disagree with it. I shared my opinion. Let it rest.

so whats your ideas to improve things then if this is so bad?

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 04:47 PM

no im not going to let it rest
this is a discussion that you were all about chiming in on until i asked the question to you
see, this is what i find wrong with alot of society today
eceryone, including myself at times, is so quick to yell about all the things they think are wrong with an idea until they are asked what they would do
then its all "i dont have all the answers" or "its not my job to think up this stuff"
well, why not?
if things are so bad with the way shit is being run, give me some answers as to how things can be done better

MyOwnWay - 11-20-2007 at 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBadVibes
no im not going to let it rest
this is a discussion that you were all about chiming in on until i asked the question to you
see, this is what i find wrong with alot of society today
eceryone, including myself at times, is so quick to yell about all the things they think are wrong with an idea until they are asked what they would do
then its all "i dont have all the answers" or "its not my job to think up this stuff"
well, why not?
if things are so bad with the way shit is being run, give me some answers as to how things can be done better

Heres the deal. Anytime ever, I have had an opinion on this board of a political nature or otherwise it has been left open for complete scrutiny. It gets old. So I enjoy the casual laid back approach. But your above post struck a nerve now.

What I think would be better is a more efficient distribution of tax dollars. Put to schools for educational programs such as violence. Community programs for adolescents and teens sponsored by local establishments. Libraries getting more agressive towards advertisements geared towards the importance. I think whats gonna help the situation of violence in inner-city and suburband communities is to educate them and make the youth aware of ways out. In addition give them places to go. Something to do. Give schools and libraries the resources to hold parent meetings and support groups to share ideas within the community that start with their own household. Those are the things I think will help greatly and far more effectively than randomly or targeting a home and/or neighborhood and walking up in someones house with or without warrant.

gavin - 11-20-2007 at 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MyOwnWay

Quote:

and i agree with you 110%
but these are LONG TERM ideads
something that would take YEARS to see any effect from
what do we do in the here and now?
i for sure dont have the answers
but i dont find this to be a bad idea per say
so what, in the short term, do we as a community do if not except things such as this as a nessesity in this current state of things?

godabandonedme - 11-20-2007 at 05:32 PM

Police are allowed to randomly walk up to any house they want and ask to investigate based on no evidence of a crime being/having been/will be commited. It's called a "mere encounter". It's like a cop asking you on the street, how's your day going? Nice weather huh? Do you happen to have a gun or drugs on you? That's our job. The public is has absolutely every right to refuse to answer or in this case let them in. Basically the 5th amendment. No probable cause by cops = don't incriminate yourself. Do you have a teenaged son/daughter? If so where they ever arrested and what for? Oh narcotics violations? Gang affiliation/violent assaults? If you answer yes to those questions of your own free will (which is the same with letting them in) then you voulanteerd(sic) that information which a cop (like any reasonable person) could then assume that a firearm or narcotics could be in the house. Mind if we get a look at his room? Oh theres some paraphanilla. Mere encounter (just stopping by to say hi) + reasonable suspicion (your kid is a shitbag admitted by you) + evidence of narcotics in plain view = probable cause for a search warrent. If your an American and you don't know your rights or how to exercise them, you don't deserve them. Enough about "who's homes there going to" Guess what, this shit is happening more in the ghetto, where there is smoke there is fire. Stop worrying about what the papers say, again it's a business they need to sell shit. I don't know whrere you live, but this city is a fucking literal warzone because of people that don't give 2 fucks about your basic right to live, so if a few people get pissed in the meantime to bad. We're not trying to or ever going to start shipping off black people in trains anytime soon so forget that shit. I'm pretty conservative and sternly beleive in our rights, however I think they were written along with some laws because poloticians know that some people just don't have any fucking common sense. All of our basic rights are common sense, but some people are so stupid they need it spelled out for them an when laws are written with that in mind that actually ends up hindering the police and fucking with public safety. Look, I know a drug dealer/gang member/lowlife scumbag criminal when I see one, if it looks like a duck etc...but some stupid fucks need it spelled out, now you have laws written that protect these assholes from police just being able to walk up on them and give them what they deserve. Most of that shit comes through local an federal case law, but that's just a broader view of it. Look up something called "forced abandonedment", here's an example: I'm driving down the street as a cop and look over at a guy I've locked up before, he's juts walking down the street, he sees me an gets scared, pulls out a gun and a pound of coke, throws them an runs. Now I chase him an grab him. That will get thrown out of court immeaditly (wouldn't make it past prelim hearing). Basically the law says that since the guy was doing nothing wrong an I didn't have any probable cause to stop him before he dumped the shit I wouldn't have known about it had he not got scared by my simple presence and his assumption I was going to stop him, therefore the gun an drugs aren't admisable as evidence. I could have stopped to ask how his day was an if he were uncomfortable he could have walked away, unless I saw something perculiar I couldn't legally do anymore to detain or investigate him I wouldn't have found the stuff. Fucking lawyers. But it all is based on the fact that he has no common sense, he assumed I was going to stop him, but if he had common sense he would know I legally can't. Argh, my head hurts now.

Murk - 11-20-2007 at 08:32 PM

i have NEVER, in my whole life, been in a situation where i told a cop "no" and it was a pleasant experience.

i have NEVER, in my whole life, been in a situation where i told a cop i was aware of my rights and it was a pleasant experience.

looks like there's spin on both sides of the coin.

Quote:

Originally posted by godabandonedme
But it all is based on the fact that he has no common sense, he assumed I was going to stop him, but if he had common sense he would know I legally can't.

fair enough, but i'm guessing if i showed up in Philly to teach inner city youth about their rights and "common sense", as you call it, i would not be a favorite of you and your colleagues.

i'm also guessing that if the Philly school system mandated that every child past the 6th grade would have to learn their rights and "common sense", there would be disapproval also.

Six66Mike - 11-20-2007 at 11:00 PM

I'm still interested in why parents don't just keep an eye on their kids. If anyone is going to suspect something its the parents that lives with the kids and sees changes going on and any dodgy behaviour.

But how about this. Police knock, ask if they can look for guns and drugs, you say sure because you feel pushed into it. They come in, look through the room and find neither. But what if they see something else illegal? They were only granted permission to come and look for 2 things, nothing else. They had no probable cause for their other discovery, whatever it may be so the discovery of that item was without warrant.

What would happen then? Is there cause for arrest, evidence submissible to the courts? Will the reason why they found it come up in court?

Too many loose ends and as people said, this was Germany in the 30's...

newbreedbrian - 11-21-2007 at 12:30 AM

I don't think anything is going to force immediate change, again band aid solutions. the only way to change any of this is to look at long term solutions and basically the bigger picture itself. putting more money into education and health care are the two biggest. if you cut even a fraction of military spending and diverted it to these two things (even for a predetermined amount of time), that would be a huge step in the right direction. and not just a little token bit here and there to show "we care". i think another thing, and this may be a little more arbitrary than the others, is borrowing the the idea of parent's responsibility for their childrens actions from asian culture. the fact is a lot of kids never had a chance from the start. as tough as i ever had it, my life was a fucking fairy tale compared to some peoples childhoods. looking at the root causes of our current social problems makes alot more sense than these kind of tactics. i'm not trying to chirp anyone here who agrees with this, but do you honestly believe this "outreach program" is really going to do any good in the larger scheme of things? another step in the right direction would be to stop glamorizing the wrong people, wastes of space like Paris Hilton and drug dealing thug rap stars. Make heroes out of the people in this world that are actually trying to do some good for people.

Six66Mike - 11-21-2007 at 01:41 AM

Government's are stupid, they don't want to spend money on essentials that will benefit them and society in the long run.

If you educate people and give them enough money to live, you bring them up. But it will cost billions to make sure they have the health and education to get to the right places. However those billions can be recouped by contributing members to society who live longer and are happier.

They just want to think about the now quick fix to look good because they won't be around long enough to reap the rewards of the policies they could put in place to fix things long term.

I hate politics.

upyerbum - 11-21-2007 at 09:52 AM

Food for thought.....

If the US government had invested as much money into Social Security as it has into the Iraq war (just Iraq, not talking war on terror or any of the spin-off spending) it would have been enough to carry the American Social Security system into the next CENTURY. The debt that has been incurred and continues to be incurred will take at least that long to pay off, IF it is payed at a rate equaling the equivalent of TWO such wars a year. You make your bed and then, guess what, you gotta' sleep in it.

What it boils down to is priorities. It is a band aid solution yes, but if steps are being taken to reduce the need for such solutions, maybe its not such a big deal. However I don't see such steps being taken, so it boils down to more perceived power to the police and the little guy getting stepped on. True or not that is how it is perceived, and it may not be the best move with the current climate of civil libetry violations in your great United States.

godabandonedme - 11-21-2007 at 10:18 AM

Why is it the goverments job to "give them money to live"? I went to a shitty inner city public school and failed because I choose to, not because the class was to crowded or the teachers didn't care or whatever. It's not any type of solution at all, it's something that has always been there but like I said the papers use headlines to make it seem like the goverment is sending people in to ransack our homes. I've had to work for whatever I have (which ain't much). Can't get a job cause you dropped out of high school? To bad, bite the bullet get a GED learn something and better yourself. Why is it always someone elses responsibility? My taxes go to pay for people that don't care about themselves let alone their impact on society, everything they have was given to them for free. When your raised like that you'll never learn the value of anything let alone hard work, or god forbid the value of a human life, hence why it's no big thing to lay a few rounds out at some corner boys who disrespected you. I've met some great people in the ghetto, but I say unless your over 60, there is absolutely no excuse as to why you can't get out and do better for yourself or family. Or, you can live in your HUD house that's payed for by the goverment every month, take your welfare check (*more kids = more $$$) and get a Benz with 22's. It's a shitty world, but I think around 18 you gota man the fuck up an decide what you want with your life, stop using excuses and get YOUR priorities straight, why should the goverment have to? Were getting off subject, yea Iraq sucks an we can argue all day if we should be there, but to bad, we are there and Americans are dying and we are not pulling out in a day, I would bet that more then half of the enlisted troops over there only went in to get money for college or for career training etc., people who had there shit straight an are now in a shitty situation. Back to the "plan" (it's not a plan at all, something we can always do). I'm all for exercising your rights, HOWEVER using them as a scapegoat to not get in trouble because your a shitbag or raised shitbag kids is not what I think those rights were meant to intale. Personally, I say let the animals kill themselves (that's what they are doing anyway) because even when we do try to help, these fucks don't want it or want it done their own way, sorry shit doesn't work like that. Every liberal bleeding heart "oh they are so poor an it's everyones fault but their own" should spend a month in North Philly. Get it right, these ghettos aren't some third world refugee camps where people want out of, these people choose to live this way. Well, if you choose to be a shitbag then your gona get treated like one plain and simple.

Voodoobillyman - 11-21-2007 at 10:20 AM

I'm seeing these same kinds of concepts being used right now in a foreign nation and guess what, they are working for the short term, now if the GOI could get off it's collective fat asses and get some serious politicing done, we might be able to put this baby to bed and come home. But for the short term, strict security measures are required to quell otherwise out of hand violence that would continue to boil over and get nowhere for anyone except in the ground. These consents to search in high profile crime type areas where issues exist are nothing even close to what is being done here, Law Enforcement has a job to do and because of our rights their hands are heavily tied trying to do it. People scream "why don't they fuckin do anything about all of this sensless violence, drug abuse, crime etc....??!!!" And the same fuckers scream out of the other side of their faces "The cops are violating our rights and gestapo this and ss that and blah blah blah!" If you don't have anything to hide, whats the problem? Something has to give, if you really fear what decisions lawmakers may make in the future based on these actions, vote for lawmakers that would refrain from allowing warranless searches become the norm. I did like the community programs brought up here as a long term solution though, it would work, if you had someone willing to fund it and work it correctly.

godabandonedme - 11-21-2007 at 10:36 AM

http://youtube.com/watch?v=YLysDc5b3u8&feature=related

I have personally locked up or been there for every person in that video SEVERAL times. This video was later used in court to help convict the idiot showing the Tec for the murder of Faheem Thomas Childs in 03'. He was a 9 year old kid leaving school at 23rd and Cambria (also a big drug corner). Well there was 2 groups who wanted to sell on that corner and about 2:30pm when school let out, they shot over 80 bullets at each other killing childs, and wounding a crossing gaurd. These animals make the CHOICE to live like this. Community programs usually do not work, remember your dealing with people who hate police, teach their children to hate police and any other type of authority. All you get at a community meeting is what they want how they want it, because everything else has been given to them they think that is the normal way life should work. Anyway, that's pretty much the center of where I work.

upyerbum - 11-21-2007 at 01:11 PM

Its called a welfare state. My question is how is that any different from the rich scumbags who routinely break laws and circumnavigate tax regulations etc., to a far greater detriment for your country. They have the exact same sense of entitlement. I'm rich, I deserve it. I'm poor, I deserve it. What's the difference.
Maybe they should be taking this approach to big business. "Excuse me, would you mind if we had a look at your books?" They don't though because there would be a fucking battalion of lawyers at their throats. So they don't do anything. Same on the street, they go after the small time guys, the guys putting the shit in their hands never get touched though, do they?

That being said, I am aware that the police have a very hard job to do, and anything we discuss here, ain't gonna' change shit on the street. Once politicians realize that, maybe something will change.

godabandonedme - 11-21-2007 at 08:52 PM

"Its called a welfare state. My question is how is that any different from the rich scumbags who routinely break laws and circumnavigate tax regulations etc., to a far greater detriment for your country. They have the exact same sense of entitlement. I'm rich, I deserve it. I'm poor, I deserve it. What's the difference.
Maybe they should be taking this approach to big business. "Excuse me, would you mind if we had a look at your books?" They don't though because there would be a fucking battalion of lawyers at their throats. So they don't do anything. Same on the street, they go after the small time guys, the guys putting the shit in their hands never get touched though, do they?"

Why is it no one can address the subject of PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY? Why compare it to anything else? Apples and Oranges. If you can really put the two in the same class then I really think you don't have any insight on what is going on. "Sure I shot that mother fucker, he was talking shit the other day, don't pay attention to me though there's a guy downtown that embezzled a million dollars from some big company.."

Sure I did something wrong, but he did something worse. Plus he's rich and doesn't have to live like me.

Come on, this is ridiculous.

upyerbum - 11-22-2007 at 01:45 PM

Cause and effect buddy, it all starts at the top of the food chain, and if you can't see that then I really think you don't have any insight on what is going on.
Class parity in the US is on the same scale as Brazil and only going to get worse, so you best clean your gun and polish your badge.

DaveMoral - 11-22-2007 at 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by MrBadVibes
all i ever hear is "what this or that can lead to"
and none of this sort of thing EVER leads to anything other then what it is
cant we cross a "what if" bridge when/if we get to it?

NO! Because it's a slippery fucking slope, and the trajectory of this country has been heading further and further from the ideals laid down in the Constitution towards more and more bowing to authority. It will inevitably lead to an authoritarian police state.

Talk about media hype. The majority of the media hype lies in keeping people fearful. This country no longer treats crime like a social ill that needs to be dealt with, but rather a rule and standard that ALL PEOPLE are criminal. Increasingly suspicion and paranoia is taking hold of this nation, and it's been going on far longer than 9 11 2001. At least 60 years.

For the record, there's nothing inherently scary about the terms "warrantless search" or "stop and frisk," what raises alarm bells in SOME PEOPLE's minds is the fact that it sounds so inocuous, that people are so willing to agree. And that fact that it is indeed a slippery slope. This isn't Germany circa 1938, but it's moving steadily towards that.

Barnesey - 11-23-2007 at 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Murk
i have NEVER, in my whole life, been in a situation where i told a cop "no" and it was a pleasant experience.

i have NEVER, in my whole life, been in a situation where i told a cop i was aware of my rights and it was a pleasant experience.

looks like there's spin on both sides of the coin.

Quote:

Originally posted by godabandonedme
But it all is based on the fact that he has no common sense, he assumed I was going to stop him, but if he had common sense he would know I legally can't.

Exactly, if the police want to arrest you, they will. If you know your rights, they will find some bullshit charge to at least book you for the night. Even if you're not being confrontational, they take offense to it and want to run some big dick/pissing contest with you just to show they have power over you. Been there plenty of times and I've always been polite with officers because the other way will get you nowhere but more trouble. I haven't read this article so I can't comment on it. I'll check it out tomorrow. Murk, you're totally right in what you've stated and what I've seen below, none of these points were addressed.

Barnesey - 11-23-2007 at 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by godabandonedme

Sure I did something wrong, but he did something worse. Plus he's rich and doesn't have to live like me.

Come on, this is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is that the rich can spring bail while the poor motherfucker is sitting in County Jail. The rich gets a wheeling and dealing attorney who is going to get him a deal, the poor guy gets railroaded because he has no choice but the Public Defender assigned to him who will most likely sell his ass out. It's easy to preach all this right wing reactionary rhetoric when you're not dealing with it. I'm not saying people locked up are in the right, but the question is even if they are innocent, do they have a fucking chance?

random - 11-23-2007 at 01:55 AM

Lots of short comments:

(1) Since it was mentioned above about what happens if cops find something other than guns... it's obvious, but it's also int the article if you go read it... up to the officer. Basically, if you give consent to search for one thing, then anything they find is fair game. If you want to tie this to other issues (though some of you don't seem like you'll be sympathetic), keep in mind that if grandma is retired and raising the kid since mom and dad crapped out long ago, and the grandmother in in public housing, and there are drugs found (that the shitbag kid has)... then a retired, law-abiding old lady who's trying to raise her grandkid decently may be out on her ass due to federal regulations regulations about drugs in public housing. However, bottom line is that legally, *any* consent to search allows them to use *everything* that's found. And parents with good intentions may be facing criminal charges or losing housing as a result.

(2) Quote:

Quote:

i have NEVER, in my whole life, been in a situation where i told a cop "no" and it was a pleasant experience.

i have NEVER, in my whole life, been in a situation where i told a cop i was aware of my rights and it was a pleasant experience.

This is the absolute fucking truth. And saying "no" or "I know my rights" usually leads right away to "Oh, so what are you trying to hide?"

(3) Legally, this program is a non-issue. Cops ask for consent... you give consent... cops search. There's nothing wrong with that, either. The issue is that police are being taken off the street to go knock on doors and ask for consent. Why? How do they choose the houses? How often are they coming back? When does this cross the line into harassment?

Better yet, why can't they just stop and frisk the kid on the street when he's carrying the gun/drugs?

The issue here is targeting people without enough evidence to get a search warrant. And I do take that pretty damn seriously. The "slippery slope" is that the police are doing something legal, but they're specifically devoting resources in an effort to avoid collecting evidence using standard practices and instead are going to spend a lot of time and effort knocking on doors. If the parents gave a shit that their kid was in a gang, they'd call the cops themselves. But this seems like an intentional-yet-legal attempt to harass a community. And I've been the only white guy in a poor, black community with a lot of drugs for long enough to know that I don't feel like being constantly harassed by police for being in the wrong area with the wrong appearance.

(4)

Quote:

Look, I know a drug dealer/gang member/lowlife scumbag criminal when I see one, if it looks like a duck etc...

And I never want to give the police the authority to do anything because "I know a drug dealer/gang member/lowlife scumbag criminal when I see one." Half this board has probably been accused of being a neo-Nazi at some point due to their appearance. Does that mean you should be stopped and questioned for being in a poor, predominantly black neighborhood since a police officer "knows a racist skinhead when I see one," which must mean you were looking for some blacks/Mexicans/drug users/ homosexuals/etc to commit a hate crime against?

If I didn't *do* anything to arouse suspicion, then I should be left the fuck alone.

(5)

Quote:

If you don't have anything to hide, whats the problem?

I hate that response, especially when it comes from conservatives who "believe" in small government (and I'm making no insinuations here about the person who made the comment). The problem is that if the government (including the police) have no evidence that I did something wrong (at least not enough to get a warrant from a court), then the government (including the police) need to leave me the fuck alone. War zones are different, and I think we all understand that certain basic rights might be relaxed a bit in a fucking war zone. But the only way you can make that argument here (and not somewhere like Iraq) is to say that we're in a situation where we need to sacrifice certain basic rights and freedoms. Fuck that. And I don't give a shit how liberal or conservative you are, if you believe in the damn Constitution and the basic principles of this country, then the police better goddamn well have a warrant or some serious fucking probable cause before they fucking knock on my door asking for permission to search... and if they had that, they wouldn't need my permission in the first place.

BDx13 - 11-26-2007 at 02:31 PM

i'm really just replying to bump this thread back to the first page so i rememebr to read it later.
damn.