Boston warrantless searches still on

How about they actually CHARGE the kids that they find in possession of a firearm illegally - and lock them up? How about that they stop letting the critters out of jail because we have too many of them locked up?

It worked in the 90's - why can't it work today?
 
dwarven1 said:
How about they actually CHARGE the kids that they find in possession of a firearm illegally - and lock them up? How about that they stop letting the critters out of jail because we have too many of them locked up?

It worked in the 90's - why can't it work today?
Click to expand...

I agree. Read post #23 again.
 
But as I said here:
http://northeastshooters.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=396803&postcount=16

Great that we are going to "get those guns off the street", but does removing the gun remove the criminal element?

What if the weapon is found in the home? How are you going to prove that the occupant was involved in the crime? What if that person was stashing the weapon for another gang member? What if another gang member planted the gun in the house? How can you prove anything? Without an arrest for the felony weapon charge, there is no basis on which that person can be charged!

This is where the lack of Police work is going to leave these cases out to dry, and I blame the City Officials and the "Community Leaders" for impeding justice being served on these scumbags.

Some clergy members have apparently volunteered to accompany police on the searches because they are suspicious of their intent.
"My belief is there are ministers that will do it as part of their ministry because they want to make sure police don't overstep their boundaries," said the Rev. David Wright, executive director of the Black Ministerial Alliance, whose board has not decided whether to endorse the program. "And I think that's a valid point."
Click to expand...

GIVE ME A BREAK!
 
If you do allow us to search and we find a firearm, your son/daughter will not be charged.
Click to expand...

So many traps here.

What if it is the parent's gun? Couple possib ilities.

Parent licenced: parent gets charged with violation of Storage Law

Parent has no license, but police show that it was parent who owned gun (but stashed it in the kid's room, trying to aviod the rap. Parent goes to jail ("we promoised not to charge the kid".)
 
pbearperry said:
I didn't say you were cop bashing,I said lets not turn it into one.Cops don't make the laws or the policies,they enforce them whether they like them or not or they are gone.Being a Cop in the Northeast is not a short carreer,it takes many years to be able to get a pension and retire.That 20 year movie and tv thing does not exist.I saw the job change tremendously over 32 years and not for the better believe me.As far as guns go,there is nobody in this forum who loves them more than me.If I ever get disarmed I will be ready for the box.
Click to expand...

I have news for you. You can still retire with twenty years of service. You have better than most of the members of this group.

It is twenty years. In most cases non-detective SP retire after twenty years often due to mandatory retirements. They may retire at any age with 20 years of service.

Group 4 employees may retire at 20 years of service or 10 years at 55.

Plus Group 4 gets a bump-up from the regular joe schmoe that is working in the Town clerk's office for peanuts. So add on ten more years to your age to get your percentage off the chart.

Police officers often retire with payments larger than the paychecks of most civilian state and town employees. You get more than you would had received from SS. Who knows. You're probably working a job to get SS benefits, too.

Bill
 
jcr said:
So many traps here.
Click to expand...

You have that right! Also, what business is it for a civilian to be on a warrantless search to oversee the process? IMO, that is just opening up the entire process for legal review if charges are filed.

It is easier to blame a object for the increased crime than it is to blame the criminal element for evil that they inflict on society.
 
Last edited:
Tom Finneran had that Black Panther guy on his show this morning. Finneran said he has no problem with this proposed BPD policy. He said he'd simply tell the officers they couldn't come into his home.
As if the average resident of Dorchester has the same understanding of his or her 4th Amendment rights as the average law school-educated, former Speaker of the House does.

Tool.
 
Question for those more knowledgable than I on this topic. So, here it goes.
Let's say the Mother (or whatever) allows the police inside to "search for guns". Once the search is consented to, do the police have cart blanche to search the whole house?

What happens if they find a gun AND something else? Fine, so the let the gun slide and arrest for say drugs or "large ammounts of cash"? Do they then arrest for drugs, and might as well throw the gun on there too as it is just an add on?

After they are finished searching (presumably) the kids room, do they then search the living room, parent's room etc?
 
The Boston Police stated if they have been given the right to search the juveniles room,even if they find something thats the end of the search.If anyone here has any better ideas of getting the bad guns off the streets of Boston, I am sure the Commisioner would love to hear it.
 
This thread conflates a number of issues, which are in fact distinct.

1) Is this program a Fourth Amendment violation? No.

2) Is this program wise public policy? Debatable.

3) Will this program, if implemented and met with some parental acquiescence, remove unlawfully possessed firearms from the streets? Only in very small numbers, and those removed are likely to be replaced pretty quickly.

4) Will this program, same stipulations, remove any criminally motivated actors from the streets? No.

In short, I believe the program is an invocation of Politicians Rule 14(b)(6), which says: "If unable to do anything effective about a public problem, do something worthless and make a lot of noise about it."
 
And what if (hold on, let me get my tinfoil hat - OK, got it) the police asking aren't totally honest with regard to the search.

Cop: "We'd like to come in and look for guns"
Parent: "Do you have a warrant"
Cop: "We don't need a warrant, please let us in to look for guns"

Is anything dishonest? No, because if the parent gives in to the "please let us in" then, they don't need a warrant.


I'd be for this, if the criminal would be locked up. Same way as I wish game wardens would check fishing licenses more, I paid for mine and I'd like to see the poachers put away. I pay to be law abiding, but I guess it would be cheaper to just break the law.
 
pbearperry said:
The Boston Police stated if they have been given the right to search the juveniles room,even if they find something thats the end of the search.If anyone here has any better ideas of getting the bad guns off the streets of Boston, I am sure the Commisioner would love to hear it.
Click to expand...

Pbearperry,
"getting the bad guns off the streets"?
The depth of your ignorance knows no bounds...
 
In_God_We_Trust said:
While I do not doubt that someone who does not posses a license to own a firearm is breaking the law, the fact remains that after the gun is seized, you still have the criminal element left behind.
Click to expand...

I understand the point you are making and agree, but I'll go one further: A person without an FID/LTC in possession of a gun in their home is breaking a MA law but is doing nothing wrong - possession of the means of self-defense is not wrong by nature but is only wrong by laws of the state. As in VT, only felons in possession of guns are doing wrong, as almost all agree they should not possess firearms.

In_God_We_Trust said:
I am sick and tired in blaming the gun for the problems of society. If a gun is found in the home, the parent or child should be arrested.
Click to expand...

Again, I won't as much disagree, as I understand your motive, but I'll suggest that if the gun owner can't be arrested & jailed without finding a gun in their home, then they are not a bad guy. Owning a gun is not wrong, committing crinimal acts that harm others is wrong. If you can be a gang-banger and not do wrong or harm others, then you should be able to own a gun too. You can't be a gang-banger and be honest & law-abiding, can you? But you can drive from NH to MA with an AK47 and turn from an honest, law-abiding citizen to a felon by crossing a border.

I'm picturing a comical fantasy where the Boston police are holding an armed bank-robber at gunpoint. They say drop the gun, sieze the gun and have it taken away to be destroyed, letting the bank-robber go free. After all, it's not the criminal or the crime that's bad - it's the gun. Slap-Slap - OK, I've snapped out of it. [smile]
 
OK folks here is the problem with this ridiculous policy that could directly affect us.

If the police are successful in confiscating guns and illegal drugs from these homes and don't arrest the criminal, they have now left a criminal on the streets who is now in the market for new guns and illegal drugs. This means crime will increase in the state again as criminals rob people to get the money and invade our homes looking for our guns!

Once again, good job Boston!
 
No Looking Backwards said:
Tom Finneran had that Black Panther guy on his show this morning. Finneran said he has no problem with this proposed BPD policy. He said he'd simply tell the officers they couldn't come into his home.
As if the average resident of Dorchester has the same understanding of his or her 4th Amendment rights as the average law school-educated, former Speaker of the House does.

Tool.
Click to expand...
Finneran did the citizens of Boston a service by saying what he'd do.
You're sticking up for the same ignorant fools who vote the likes of Menino into office time after time. The get what they deserve if they're too lazy or stupid to know their rights.
 
police search

does not the constitution prohibit searches with out a warrant?and a warrant willnot be issued with out just cause.there is more.what also happens if SCOTUS rules individual rights.seems they are rushing in to battle before they lose it.If the SCOTUS rules the individual right then you are going to be bankrupt.you pay the taxes.
also check amendment 15 sec 1.If you are a citizen you can vote,if you can vote you are a citizen.felons are citizens under the 15th.
the sheep make their own beds and Mass residents are sheep.[smile]
 
JonJ said:
They get what they deserve if they're too lazy or stupid to know their rights.
Click to expand...

Consider that the Miranda decision, in reference to reading you your Miranda rights, did not create any new rights, but simply required government to inform you of your rights when arrested.

More BS you would say?

If these protections must be made to those suspected of committing a crime, then why shouldn't these protections be given in this case? They aren't going randomly from door-to-door, they are targeting homes with occupants suspected of committing crime. And if random, all the more reason to inform residents of their rights:

- You may refuse entry without a search warrant
- If you do consent to entry without a warrent, anything you or others say, or anything we find, may be used to try and convict you or others in a court of law
- That is, whatever we tell you to get in your door without a warrant we can take back if we want to - now or at some time in the future

I say no - too costly to freedom and rights.
 
as almost all agree they should not possess firearms.
Click to expand...
This shows how people have been brainwashed. I have no problem banning those with a history of convictions for violent offenses from possessing firearms, however, I think it's a bit extreme to strip the right of someone convicted of insider trading or another crime that does not give any indication that the person would be particularly inclined to violent behavior.
 
Bostons Warrantless Police home searches meeting opposition, program pulls back...

Police limit searches for guns
Opposition from residents is strong; Invited into homes without warrants


Boston police officials, surprised by intense opposition from residents, have significantly scaled back and delayed the start of a program that would allow officers to go into people's homes and search for guns without a warrant.

The program, dubbed Safe Homes, was supposed to start in December, but has been delayed at least three times because of misgivings in the community. March 1 was the latest missed start date.

One community group has been circulating a petition against the plan. Police officials trying to assuage residents' fears have been drowned out by criticism at some meetings with residents and elected officials.

Officers may begin knocking on doors this week, officials said yesterday, but instead of heading into four troubled neighborhoods, as they had planned, officers will target only one, Egleston Square in Jamaica Plain, where police said they have received the most support.

Police would ask parents or legal guardians for permission to search homes where juveniles ages 17 and under are believed to be holding illegal guns. Police would only enter homes into which they have been invited and, once inside, would only search the rooms of the juveniles.

The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.

But critics say that the searches are unconstitutional and that police will not guarantee that residents would face no criminal charges if guns or drugs were found.

Commissioner Edward F. Davis has been taken aback by the criticism. Davis promoted Safe Homes as a voluntary program that would help overwhelmed, frightened parents and guardians by removing guns from their homes without fear of prosecution.

"I would say that the police commissioner has been a bit surprised by those that are not in favor," Driscoll said. "We're genuinely trying to save lives."

But for many of the 100 people who packed the Roxbury Family YMCA last Thursday to talk about the plan, the goal of the program was overshadowed by tactics they called invasive and misleading.

"Police are like vampires. They shouldn't be invited into your homes," said Jamarhl Crawford, chairman of the New Black Panther Party in Roxbury, who moderated the meeting.

"Vampires are polite; they're smooth," he said in an interview the following day. "But once they get in, the door closes. Havoc ensues."

Other comparisons have been no more favorable.

"The community doesn't want this," Lisa Thurau-Gray, managing director of the Juvenile Justice Center at Suffolk University Law School, said at the meeting. She likened the police persistence to a sexual aggressor who refuses to stop assaulting a victim despite her pleas. "What part of no don't they understand?" she said.

Police officials have said the searches would be based on tips from the community, including neighbors, school officials, and even the parents of the child. The officers searching homes would be members of units that patrol schools and who have visited the houses of teenagers as part of Operation Homefront, which is meant to help build better relationships between troubled children and their families.Continued...
Click to expand...

http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/03/25/police_limit_searches_for_guns/

The black panthers quote and the JJC quotes are right on the money. Its good to see some common sense and a push back by some folks.
 
What I'm afraid of, is that these groups are going to look like they object simply because they don't want to see anyone get in trouble......case in point, not once does any of the quoted opponents mention anything about Constitutional rights.
 
The idea is absurd. If parents are terrified of their kids enough to need this, the problem is with the parents. If cops can't enforce laws that exist, the problem is with the methods they are using or the laws. To create a system where absentee parents are asked to waive their rights so that cops can "solve" gun problems but not enforce laws is pretty much the most ass-backwards thing i've ever heard. IMHO, if these parents are scared of their own kids and wont or can't search their own kids rooms themselves, what they need is for the cops to arrest their kids because its obvious their parenting isn't doing the job in the first place.

To me, the situation appears to be a whole bunch of police who are unable to enforce existing laws, so instead are trying to create the same results as if they were enforcing those laws by asking for permission to perform warrentless searches.

What really bothers me is that if my dad called the police for some unrelated reason, and when he opened the door, they saw a gun and determined it to be illegal for some reason, they would throw the book at him. Why should parents be able to absolve their children's felonies simply by placing a call to the police while other people are not given that option? Seems once again they are rewarding the criminals while "normal" people are still subjected to the law as it is written.
 
GOAL Urges Members to Contact Boston Police Commissioner and Ask Him Not to Endanger Massachusetts Families

In recent months, the Boston Police have unveiled a plan, falsely dubbed “Safe Homes,” to conduct warrantless searches of homes in specific troubled neighborhoods. The supposed intent of this plan is to confiscate guns and illegal drugs from criminals that might be hiding these items in their homes.

While Gun Owners’ Action League certainly supports getting guns and illegal drugs out of the hands of criminals, we are very concerned that the city has chosen to circumvent the constitutional process for legal searches. We are even more concerned that the city has promised not to arrest or even file charges against the criminals involved.

“By confiscating the guns and illegal drugs and not putting the criminals involved in jail, the City of Boston will be putting us all in danger,” said Jim Wallace Executive Director of GOAL. “If the City of Boston goes through with these warrantless searches and confiscates these items without imprisoning the criminal, that means they have left a criminal on the streets who is now in the market to replace these items. Now the criminals will rob more people to get the cash to buy illegal drugs and invade more homes trying to steal our legally owned guns. This entire policy is incredibly irresponsible and poorly thought out!”

GOAL is urging all of our members, regardless of where they live in Massachusetts, to contact the Boston City Police Commissioner and ask him not to endanger Massachusetts families by following through with this new program. Ask him to keep all of our Homes Safe!

The Commissioner can be reached at:

Email: http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/contact.asp

Phone: 617 343 4200

Boston Police Headquarters
One Schroeder Plaza
Boston, MA 02120-2014
 
The goal, said Elaine Driscoll, spokeswoman for the Boston Police Department, would be getting weapons off the streets, rather than making arrests.
Click to expand...

This is why you fail, it is not the guns it is the people. You morons!
 

Similar threads

Boston gang member who posed with guns on Snapchat goes to prison
2
Replies
31
Views
971
1sern
1
LTC PD Boston 😔
Replies
8
Views
321
M1911
M1911
Boston Police Officer Shot
Replies
21
Views
758
Dennis in MA
Dennis in MA
*UPDATE 4/8* Goin on 4 months and still at “local pd”
2 3 4
Replies
92
Views
3K
JDL
JDL
Georgia on my mind
2 3 4
Replies
104
Views
2K
StevieP
StevieP
Back
Top Bottom