-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Boston warrantless searches still on
- Thread starter jcr
- Start date
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,384
- Likes
- 104
Ignorance
You remind me of a lot of Politicians who like to make outrageous statements but have no idea how to fix anything themselves.What plan do you have besides poo poo something before it's even started?
You remind me of a lot of Politicians who like to make outrageous statements but have no idea how to fix anything themselves.What plan do you have besides poo poo something before it's even started?
Garys
NES Member
Ironically, the ones that are involved in criminal activity probably have a better idea of their rights than the average lawyer!
![[thinking]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/010.gif "Thinking [thinking]")
Which is not to say that this is a good idea.
Gary
Jon, there are a lot of us who did not vote Menino into office! We are here and we are not getting what we deserve which among many things is an LTC without a restriction: NO CONCEAL CARRY.
This Boston Search plan is a farce. As many others have stated, get the criminal off the street and the demand for "illegal guns" will decline. The City of Boston is in a downward spiral. It stands as a prime example of what happens when politicians, prosecutors and judges coddle criminals.
Best Regards.
Yes and you know not to let the police into your home without a warrant. What's the problem?
I agree, the whole concept is a farce.
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,384
- Likes
- 104
People complain when Police are just reactive,and then are infuriated when they try to be proactive.Sorry Mr. & Mrs. Public,you can't have it both ways.The folks in Roxbury for years complained of a poor Police presense in their neighborhoods,then later complained because the Cops were harrassing their kids by kicking them off of the corners just because they dressed like Gang Bangers.Forty years ago an oldtimer on my job told me "Kid,your damned if you do,and damned if ya don't.Boy was he right,and nothing has changed.
Hello, McFly?!?! Maybe they should start with getting thugs off the street and incarcerate them. Then they can worry about all the "bad guns".
How's this for irony? This is a State House News Service story released today.
SJC ALLOWS FIREARM EVIDENCE DESPITE “UNLAWFUL” SEARCH BY POLICE
The state’s high court on Tuesday reversed a lower court decision to suppress evidence of illicit firearms in what officers initially thought was a case of illegal drug use. The case stems back to the summer of 2004, when Boston Police officers entered a Dorchester apartment building to investigate a matter on the third floor but smelled “fresh marijuana” coming from a second floor apartment, according to the Supreme Judicial Court opinion. Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence, prompting a nervous and evasive tenant to emerge. The tenant, Matthew Streeter, at first denied anyone else was in the apartment and said he had smoked marijuana earlier in the day, but when pressed by officers, he admitted that his four-year-old daughter was in the apartment, as was a friend. When Streeter’s friend opened the door, two bags of marijuana were in plain view on a kitchen countertop. Officers entered the apartment to secure the evidence and performed a “protective sweep” to ensure that no one else was in the apartment who could remove or destroy evidence. During their sweep, one officer frisked a blue duffel bag and felt what he thought to be a firearm. Upon obtaining a search warrant, officers opened the bag and discovered a sawed-off shotgun and a nine millimeter magazine. According to the SJC, the officer’s initial external search of the duffel bag was unauthorized, which was the rationale used by lower courts to throw out the evidence. But the high court found that the police would have obtained a search warrant regardless of the initial search, based solely on the evidence of illegal drugs, and they would likely have discovered the shotgun legally. Streeter and his friend, Lorenzo Bryant, were arrested for possession of marijuana after the original search, and Streeter was later charged with possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of a large-capacity firearm and not having a firearm identification card. In their ruling, the court found that “While the external search of the bag was not lawful...that evidence would still be admissible against the defendant if the police would have independently or inevitably discovered it pursuant to the search authorized by ... search warrant.” “The search for narcotics authorized by the excised warrant application would have certainly turned up the gun and ammunition evidence here,” according to the opinion.
SJC ALLOWS FIREARM EVIDENCE DESPITE “UNLAWFUL” SEARCH BY POLICE
The state’s high court on Tuesday reversed a lower court decision to suppress evidence of illicit firearms in what officers initially thought was a case of illegal drug use. The case stems back to the summer of 2004, when Boston Police officers entered a Dorchester apartment building to investigate a matter on the third floor but smelled “fresh marijuana” coming from a second floor apartment, according to the Supreme Judicial Court opinion. Officers knocked on the door and announced their presence, prompting a nervous and evasive tenant to emerge. The tenant, Matthew Streeter, at first denied anyone else was in the apartment and said he had smoked marijuana earlier in the day, but when pressed by officers, he admitted that his four-year-old daughter was in the apartment, as was a friend. When Streeter’s friend opened the door, two bags of marijuana were in plain view on a kitchen countertop. Officers entered the apartment to secure the evidence and performed a “protective sweep” to ensure that no one else was in the apartment who could remove or destroy evidence. During their sweep, one officer frisked a blue duffel bag and felt what he thought to be a firearm. Upon obtaining a search warrant, officers opened the bag and discovered a sawed-off shotgun and a nine millimeter magazine. According to the SJC, the officer’s initial external search of the duffel bag was unauthorized, which was the rationale used by lower courts to throw out the evidence. But the high court found that the police would have obtained a search warrant regardless of the initial search, based solely on the evidence of illegal drugs, and they would likely have discovered the shotgun legally. Streeter and his friend, Lorenzo Bryant, were arrested for possession of marijuana after the original search, and Streeter was later charged with possession of a sawed-off shotgun, possession of a large-capacity firearm and not having a firearm identification card. In their ruling, the court found that “While the external search of the bag was not lawful...that evidence would still be admissible against the defendant if the police would have independently or inevitably discovered it pursuant to the search authorized by ... search warrant.” “The search for narcotics authorized by the excised warrant application would have certainly turned up the gun and ammunition evidence here,” according to the opinion.
Good point there. Though I'd rather see them err on keeping the kids off the streets. Let them open community centers or something...I dont know what kids do nowadays but there have to be some options to give them other than just standing on the corner looking menacing.
pbearperry,
In the outrageous statements department, you sir, are the presumptive winner: "getting bad guns off the street". Last time I checked, these inanimate objects were incapable of being intrinsically good or bad. A tool, to be used appropriately, or in appropriately, but in and of itself, neither good or bad, per se.
Perhaps, without realizing it, you have offended my sensibilities by comparing me to a politician. They are the most loathsome and vile parasites known to man, and have special distinction as such, in our good Commonwealth.
As for a plan of action to address violent gangbanger behavior, within the confines of Meninostan, I would offer the following for your consideration:
1. Recall the current occupant of the mayor's office and replace him with an official who will issue, after following appropriate protocol, a LTC A to anyone who requests it. Most people, sufficiently motivated, will protect themselves and their families. They would now, however, be able to use the aforementioned "tool" to their best advantage.
2. When Law Enforcement has in custody, violent adolescent felons, and, post adjudication, serve a manditory minimum of 5 years in state custody, under lock and key, as punishment for those crimes against the public safety.
Oh yea, make them pass a GED test to be released.
Oh, the horror...
How's that for starters?
But, if you feel that there are bad guns out and about the neighborhood, that are in special need to be confiscated, by trampeling of our good Constitution, and what rights it holds for us, then by all means, support hizzoner the mayor.
Garys
NES Member
This isn't a matter of community centers, before school programs, after school programs, midnight basketball, or anything else. All of that exists in Boston. What's missing is the fundamentally strong value system instilled in kids by fundamentally sound families. No government program is going to do that.
It doesn't take a village, it takes a couple of good parents.
Gary
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,384
- Likes
- 104
Bad guns
Of course guns are not bad or good.When I speak of bad guns I mean guns in the hands of criminals.It's just a saying.As far as standing behind Mayor Mumbles I can't stand the guy personally.Nothing will ever work perfectly until Judges get tough with lawbreakers and put them in jail.However,I know for a fact that getting these guns any way you can will at least stop some of the violence.Would I let cops come into my home to search,no I wouldn't,because there are no Gangbangers living here,but if I had a kid that was out of control I may let them in.
Also I know for a fact that there are not as many "bad guns" out there because lately Police are finding guns that are stashed away in public areas where many people are using them left and right.
Of course guns are not bad or good.When I speak of bad guns I mean guns in the hands of criminals.It's just a saying.As far as standing behind Mayor Mumbles I can't stand the guy personally.Nothing will ever work perfectly until Judges get tough with lawbreakers and put them in jail.However,I know for a fact that getting these guns any way you can will at least stop some of the violence.Would I let cops come into my home to search,no I wouldn't,because there are no Gangbangers living here,but if I had a kid that was out of control I may let them in.
Also I know for a fact that there are not as many "bad guns" out there because lately Police are finding guns that are stashed away in public areas where many people are using them left and right.
This decision strikes me as a pretty ordinary application of the "inevitable discovery" rule. Translated, it says that the pat frisk of the blue bag, whether proper or not, did not harm the defendant because it did not reveal anything that would not have been revealed by execution of the admittedly proper search warrant.
Ah, nope. Not going to buy that theory...
Sir,
While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. You say you know for a fact that getting these guns, any way you can, will at least stop some of the violence. I say balderdash. Provide for us your supporting documentation, if you can. I say that it is the ends, justifying the means, approach to law enforcement. At best, it is windowdressing for crime fighters, and at worst, abuse of power. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the root of the issue, the problematic adolescent. If not a gun, then a knife, a car, or a baseball bat will be used. The tool, is not the issue.
You say, that if your child were out of control, you would let them search. OK, please tell me how that provides a remedy to the problem of you correcting your child's "issues".
Quite simply, it does nothing.
Lastly, police finding stashed guns, in public areas is just good law enforcement. What a concept. Good police work that doesn't involve an erosion of constitutional rights, through coersion or intimidation... Words have meaning, mean what you say, say what you mean. There are no "bad guns"., just bad people.
Sir,
While you are entitled to your own opinion, you are not entitled to your own facts. You say you know for a fact that getting these guns, any way you can, will at least stop some of the violence. I say balderdash. Provide for us your supporting documentation, if you can. I say that it is the ends, justifying the means, approach to law enforcement. At best, it is windowdressing for crime fighters, and at worst, abuse of power. Furthermore, it does nothing to address the root of the issue, the problematic adolescent. If not a gun, then a knife, a car, or a baseball bat will be used. The tool, is not the issue.
You say, that if your child were out of control, you would let them search. OK, please tell me how that provides a remedy to the problem of you correcting your child's "issues".
Quite simply, it does nothing.
Lastly, police finding stashed guns, in public areas is just good law enforcement. What a concept. Good police work that doesn't involve an erosion of constitutional rights, through coersion or intimidation... Words have meaning, mean what you say, say what you mean. There are no "bad guns"., just bad people.
If you read post # 71 carefully, my suggestions are clearly found within.
You have not posted any documentation to support your so called facts. I presume that you are having trouble locating them.
![[frown]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/003.gif "Frown [frown]")
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,384
- Likes
- 104
Plan
You make it sound as though the cops make the arrests and let them go.The courts let them go,and yes it would be nice if Class A's were given to all that are elligible.I agree to that all the way.The GED thing would never fly though.So whats left to argue about?![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
You make it sound as though the cops make the arrests and let them go.The courts let them go,and yes it would be nice if Class A's were given to all that are elligible.I agree to that all the way.The GED thing would never fly though.So whats left to argue about?
![[popcorn]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/043.gif "Popcorn [popcorn]")
I've been following this from the sidelines like most until tonight I heard the news and the newscaster was soliciting people to call 1-800-guntips and turn in "homes that they felt were questionable and might need to be visited by the BPD"!! How outrageous!!! It is bad enough that the media slants most stories to suit their own means (profit/influence) not to simply report the news of the day. But to solicit the public!! Why couldn't they simply have posted the number and said nothing? WHy do they feel the need to feed the story and support useless policy and the idiots that perpetuate it!?!
Here's a link to an interesting and insightful Editorial from the local Bulletin News Group regarding this topic.
http://bulletinnewspapers.com/defau...&pform=&sc=1725&hn=bulletinnewspapers&he=.com
http://bulletinnewspapers.com/defau...&pform=&sc=1725&hn=bulletinnewspapers&he=.com
Is this the same Michael Flaherty who's pushing for a quick ban on 3 more large caliber weapons in Boston?
"The problem with the program, in many respects, was summed up recently by City Councilor Michael Flaherty who, it should be noted, is an almost omnipresent critic of Mayor Thomas Menino.
"The success of Safe Homes hinges upon a partnership of trust between the community and the police," he said. "But when city officials take action first and ask for community buy-in as an afterthought, they compromise the ability to establish trust and build relationships with residents. Community policing programs should be driven by the input and support of residents — input that’s solicited in advance through neighborhood meetings. A successful community policing program demands that Boston residents have a seat at the table throughout all stages of the program’s development."
Flaherty makes a valid point. The emphasis should always be placed on "community" above "policing." That the BPD underestimated opposition is testimony, perhaps, to a lack of outreach and forethought.
I guess you don't need "the input and support of residents — input that’s solicited in advance through neighborhood meetings." when you want to prohibit something.
Is this the same Michael Flaherty who's pushing for a quick ban on 3 more large caliber weapons in Boston?
Yes indeed! The Boston City Council voted to resubmit the Home Rule Petition this past week and Rep. Martin Walsh of Dorchester has agreed to sponsor it. I posted an update to the original post which can be found under Gun Laws. Flaherty is considered by the media to be a "popular" choice to replace Menino.
Best regards.
Yes indeed! The Boston City Council voted to resubmit the Home Rule Petition this past week and Rep. Martin Walsh of Dorchester has agreed to sponsor it. I posted an update to the original post which can be found under Gun Laws. Flaherty is considered by the media to be a "popular" choice to replace Menino.
Best regards.
Unfortunately for us up here in Massachusetts, the same politician run out of your state would be looked upon as a hero by a majority of citizens.
Count your blessings.Best regards.
pbearperry,
The problem is that without consequences the youth/gangbanger will learn nothing except to hide his next gun better. One gun will be off the street and the demand will increase by 1 to replace it. Now a law abiding gun owner will have to be robbed to satisfy that demand. If the gun is removed from the street and the little delinquent is placed in the custody of the DOC then there is no increase in demand as he can't use a gun in prison.
Civil rights abuses aside, this plan appears positive superficially. But in fact may accomplish the exact opposite of it's intended goal. It's goal is to decrease violence. But if the police remove a gun from the streets without removing the demand for a replacement someone may be victimized as a result.
The problem is that without consequences the youth/gangbanger will learn nothing except to hide his next gun better. One gun will be off the street and the demand will increase by 1 to replace it. Now a law abiding gun owner will have to be robbed to satisfy that demand. If the gun is removed from the street and the little delinquent is placed in the custody of the DOC then there is no increase in demand as he can't use a gun in prison.
Civil rights abuses aside, this plan appears positive superficially. But in fact may accomplish the exact opposite of it's intended goal. It's goal is to decrease violence. But if the police remove a gun from the streets without removing the demand for a replacement someone may be victimized as a result.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Wildcatt, can you punctuate those sentences? I think I understand what you're trying to say but I'm not sure.
