Police to search for guns in homes

Status
Not open for further replies.
  1. It's North East Shooters, not New England, and we interpret that rather broadly, since there are members from California and Europe here. No geographic, ethnic, racial, religious or age restriction apply.
  2. We really don't need to waste time with debates over parenting. People who don't have kids don't give a damn, while those who do already believe (rightly or wrongly) that they know everything.
  3. While we may not have seen someone's particular version of real asshat behavior, I doubt that most people have seen just how quickly and permanently such people can be disappeared from this forum.

Ken

On #1, please refer to the top banner. Also, the typical definition of Northeast doesn't include Ohio. I wouldn't have brought this up but Jose's comments about MA laws are less than constructive.
 
"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."

That guy would fail a course in constitutional law. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to, and is not offended by, consensual searches.
 
If you refuse, does that give them probable cause to get a search warrant? Glad I don't live in Boston!

No; declination of consent neither constitutes nor supports probable cause to issue a search warrant.

The real problem with this program, which has been tried before elsewhere, is that all it does is cause the kids to stash their guns elsewhere than at home. It would have been far more effective if it had not been the subject of a PD-issued press release, but I 'spect Mumbles insisted.
 
Last edited:
No; declination of consent neither constitutes nor supports probable cause to issue a search warrant.

The real problem with this program, which has been tried before elsewhere, is that all it does is cause the kids to stash their guns elsewhere than at home. It would have been far more effective if it had not been the subject of a PD-issued press release, but I 'spect Mumbles insisted.

I see one question, one issue. The question is whether the parent has the right to let the police search the kid's room. The issue is letting off illegal gun holders scot free when they hold legal gun owners to such a ridiculous standard.
 
This seems to be the gun amnesty program in a more aggressive fashion.

How many of these parents, when faced with the police at their door, would refuse entry? Especially if the police resort to heavy-handed tactics (e.g., "We can come back with a search warrant...") in order to get in.

Most of us here on NES would know how to react, but would these people?

And, how to you choose which households to visit?

Wayyy too many problems with this program to allow it to go unchallenged.
 
I see one question, one issue. The question is whether the parent has the right to let the police search the kid's room. The issue is letting off illegal gun holders scot free when they hold legal gun owners to such a ridiculous standard.

The answer to the question is clearly, "Yes." (Lots of holdings.)

The issue, however, is a valid one.
 
They keep giving gangbangers get out of jail free cards until they eventually kill someone. Almost seems like they're intentionally training armies of hardened criminals.
 
On #1, please refer to the top banner. Also, the typical definition of Northeast doesn't include Ohio.
Northeastshooters.com
New England's Premier Shooting Forum
Neither does it include California, Europe or the Philippines, but as I noted, we use a rather loose definition that still isn't restrictive in any way.

I wouldn't have brought this up but Jose's comments about MA laws are less than constructive.
True. See #2 and #3. [wink]

Ken
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “corporal punishment” but I think I understand what you meant by
…she would get the beating of her life. Period.”---jose
Would an action such as beating your child be legal in Ohio or would that action make you a child abuser?


jkelly
 
"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."

That guy would fail a course in constitutional law. The Fourth Amendment does not apply to, and is not offended by, consensual searches.

What about consent obtained through coercion?
 
This seems to be the gun amnesty program in a more aggressive fashion.
<snip>
And, how to you choose which households to visit?

Wayyy too many problems with this program to allow it to go unchallenged.

They might not be arresting people now, but this is more like a program to get the sheeple used to having the SS, Stasi or KGB walk right in any time and have a good look 'round.

If this remains unchallengened, things could ratchet up a notch or two quickly.

You want the police walking in your house at any time and "inviting" you or your child to come to the station house for a talk ?

As for how to know where to go, ever fill out a census form or have a kid in school ?


"Wayyy to may problems with this" - Damm right !

I have an Irish surname, but my Mothers family came over from Germany in '38. A lot of the political bullshit happening here sounds all to much like some of the things my grandpa told me when I was in my teens.
 
This seems to be the gun amnesty program in a more aggressive fashion.

How many of these parents, when faced with the police at their door, would refuse entry? Especially if the police resort to heavy-handed tactics (e.g., "We can come back with a search warrant...") in order to get in.

Most of us here on NES would know how to react, but would these people?

And, how to you choose which households to visit?

Wayyy too many problems with this program to allow it to go unchallenged.

True

and most in the "inner-city" can't afford lawyers to figh-back even after an "illegal search"


I hope everyone offended by the BPD plan will write to the Boston Herald in response to the article.


<< on my way to get a Herald now.
 
Ludicrous political grandstanding. Let the parents search their own kids rooms, they don't need probable cause, consent or a warrant.
 
+1 [angry]

If I found my daughter hiding a gun against my will she would get the beating of her life. Period.

Sorry for being off topic and this thread will probably get closed but I hope NES is above comments like this.

Jose I hope "beating" is your way of saying spanking....[thinking]
 
What about consent obtained through coercion?

There is no such thing; a statement of consent that is coerced isn't consent. However, that isn't the question that I answered.

On the other hand, consenting because you're afraid of what the neighbors might think, or, for that matter, because you don't want the officer standing in front of you to disapprove of you, isn't coercion. Coercion means forced, i.e., you weren't given a choice. Nothing in the plan described by what's-his-name comes even close to coercion.
 
I’m not sure what you mean by “corporal punishment” but I think I understand what you meant by
Would an action such as beating your child be legal in Ohio or would that action make you a child abuser?


jkelly

Sorry Jose.... but that comment just doesn't resonate well with me. I guess the "beating of her life" part just sickens me and would make me question the suitablility of a gun owner. Sorry... I'm not one to say that a child shouldn't get a spanking, but that's way over the top IMO... plus I honestly don't think I could lay a hand on a girl/woman anyway... unless she was so big I felt my life was threatened. No personal attack here... just another data point.
 
Jose is alright in my book.

One thing my parent's always told me growing up was, never tell another man/woman how to raise their kids.

I think it's golden advice.
 
Last edited:
I think too many people are taking what he said too literally. I quite often claim that I am going to beat someone to death for whatever reason, when all I really mean is I'm going to sit and fume about it by myself.

Maybe we should all relax, and drop the subject, and stop worrying about whether or not any of us are good parents or not over a simple semantics issue.
 
I like the responses on the Bostonherald.com site
http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/general/view.bg?articleid=1045282&format=comments

Someone needs to stand up to these so called 'police' Gestapo. There needs to be a two pronged approach. First, we neeed to make sure that all those targeted understand that they can tell the cops to get lost. Second, we need to have videocameras running in the homes so that when these ego driven, self esteem issued, gendarmaries come in, a family can record their misconduct and sue the city. I would love to coach a family to be able to taunt the police in a legal manner so that they overreact. Of course the tax payers will bear the burden, but it serves them right for buying into the mantra of 'Police are good' and 'More police equals less crime'. People need to see these thugs for what they are, goons with badges whose department's only concern is revenue generation.
#69421 - Nov 17, 2007 9:42 AM EST


Why is Conley still in office? Let us not forget his disrespect for BPD and the all-out war that he mounted with BPD Commissioner Davis. And lets not forget the way he set the State Troopers up for an all-out war with BPD. Rumor has it that there's a job open at the helm of the Boston Public Library; there's your next resting place Dan - - Mumbles has lined this resting place with silk, to make it comfy for a beaurocrat like yourself to enjoy safe haven. I'm certain you'll enjoy policing the homeless who have turned the library into a shelter. Please install new air fresheners when you get there, Dan; the homeless smell really bad.

#69339 - Nov 17, 2007 5:48 AM EST
 
File this brainstorm under "tail wagging dog"...
Things are so out of control that half baked ideas like this one are actually given creedence. The very thought of plainclothes cops going house to house of suspected gun offenders will collapse of its own weight. If this scheme is to combat the lack of community tips to police, this nonsense will have the very opposite effect. Gang bangers can smell law enforcement blocks away, and they have a much better network of informants than do the cops. If the bad guys think you have ratted, God help you.
Hey, I got another idea... target your offenders, execute quality police work, get a conviction, and LOCK THEM UP FOR A GOOD LONG PERIOD OF INCARCERATION. (A radical concept, I know, but, it might work).
Just my .02
CJ
 
Jose is alright in my book.

One thing my parent's always told me growing up was, never tell another man/woman how to raise their kids.

I think it's golden advice.

This is no judgement on Jose and I'm not saying the nanny state should start taking kids away if the parent spanks them but...

That statement is a huge friggin copout. Some parents really need to be told how to raise their kids and some parents really should have their kids taken away.
 
If I found my daughter hiding a gun against my will she would get the beating of her life. Period.---jose

I think too many people are taking what he said too literally.---z0mbi
So are you saying that we should assume his statement was just some kind of macho Bull Sh*t?

Maybe we should all relax, and drop the subject, and stop worrying about whether or not any of us are good parents or not over a simple semantics issue.---z0mbi
Do you know for certain that it’s a case of simple semantics? Perhaps you should relax and stop worrying about what others are worrying about.


jkelly
 
Last edited:
Good grief. What's next, Kristalnacht?

There is so much wrong with this that I can't even BEGIN to articulate it! Fourth amendment - what about the Fifth? "Sure, Mr PO-liceman, come right on in!" If he finds a gun, they won't arrest the kid... unless it's used in a crime. If they find drugs, they'll just confiscate it... unless they think that someone's dealing. How much more open can you get??

This is just door to door searching, plain and simple. This CANNOT be allowed to be done. Although I fear that it will...

While I like the MPD officers I've met, if they come to my house asking to search ANYTHING, they better have a warrant or the door is being firmly closed in their faces.
 
So are you saying that we should assume his statement was just some kind of macho Bull Sh*t?

I don't see why you have to assume anything about his statement, it doesn't effect you. If it helps, I don't believe half the shit people say on the internet, anyway.

Do you know for certain that it’s a case of simple semantics? Perhaps you should relax and stop worrying about what others are worrying about.

I'm not the one jumping up other peoples asses over a post on a forum, so I'd have to say I'm pretty relaxed. Just felt bad for the guy getting pig-piled over a stupid comment.

Maybe you should stop worrying if I'm worrying about other people worrying about what others are worrying about. [wink]
 
IMHO, Any idiot who let's the police do a warrantless search deserves what ever pain results from it. The only part of this whole charade that really bothers me is the fact that nobody is going to pay the piper for having an illegal gun in their home. Let a restricted LTC holder get caught carrying concealed and they will crucify him, but a gangbanger can stash loaded guns in his tighty whitey draw and there is no penalty. What an F'd up commie shit hole we live in.
 
The only part of this whole charade that really bothers me is the fact that nobody is going to pay the piper for having an illegal gun in their home.

Thats the part that really gets me. It's not part of any kind of solution. If anything, it's just going to cause more problems when these now weaponless thugs need to go rob someone so they can buy another gun.
 
It's pretty plain that Jose's remark is being used according to how each of you feel about him personally. If you're OK with Jose, then the remark was unremarkable. If you don't like Jose, then he's a childbeating monster who should have his guns confiscated. (Did someone actually suggest this?! This is like the equivalent of a nuclear bomb on a gunny site!) And then I think there are some of you who are more programmed by the PC police than you'd like to believe. Any mention of "beating" a kid triggers your PC implanted alarm devices, throwing all grasp of reading comprehension out the window.

[grin]
 
Gabe- I don't often engage in these kind of threads.. however the words he chose to use were pretty harsh (yeah- go reread them).. and it's got nothing to do with whether or not it was Jose or not. It's got nothing to do with PC crap either. Regardless- this is a public forum- you say something people don't agree with, especially something like that and it's gonna get a response.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom