Police to search for guns in homes

[clinotus]

This is like the Bandwagon on Jose week.


And for the record, call it shoving, screaming, slapping, spanking shouting, a slap happy saute or whatever..but it should be happening more often. And we would't be having these issues.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

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.

+1000

The last time I looked, we will get whacked for non-secure storage of a firearm...since it is for the CHILDREN. OK, now I am ANGRY. This is a complete unconstitutional breach into someones home.

Basically, if you are going to search for GUNS, why not any other weapon or DRUGS!?!? More than likely, if there is a gun in the house, there is a likelihood for gang affiliation / drug use.

IMHO: The PARENTS should be the ones that pay here. Where is DSS? I cannot believe that the Department of Social Services would not be the next people to beat on the door to take the kids! This is a laugh and a farce: Without anyone paying, they are just going to get another gun/weapon.

"Massachusetts: Where we treat lawful gun owners as arch criminals"

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

"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."

I cannot!!! Not securing the firearm, not having a proper license to possess such firearm...I believe that is 2 1/2 years.
If their son/daughter is that much of a criminal, as Mumbles says, "In an Emergency, call 911". The problem is that they do not want to see their thug thrown in jail....well....BOO HOO... My heart BLEADS for their quandary. F-Them!

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.

And then, 30 minutes later, Fully Dressed officers (SWAT) with a REAL search warrant will pound on the door and will toss the home.
WTF... You have to love the PC approach: "We want to avoid negative attention." No offense, but I hope the plain clothes (not being identifiable as an officer of the law) will not get them into a JAM while trying to so their search and seizure...Seems like this is not the time for the PC Police to show up. This is a SERIOUS issue.

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.

Which defense lawyer will be chomping at the bit for the chance to beat the tar out of the illegal search: Regardless of parental consent, could the prosecution obtain a conviction?

"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.' "

SIGH: PLEASE THROW THEM IN JAIL.

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."

Drugs are drugs. I believe if anyone is caught under the influence while carrying, you will be stripped of your LTC... This is BS.


What I take away from this article:

1) Boston Police Officials, the DA, and the Mayor are a bunch of morons who are unable to obtain the evidence necessary to obtain a legal search warrant: BING! Half-Baked idea to get the guns off the street.

2) As the article states, if they are receiving anonymous tips, then ACT on them and get the warrant to search!!! Then throw the scum in jail Any hey! Here is a novel idea: http://www.cityofboston.gov/police/cristop.asp


3) Easier it is to do the "Touchy Feely" route to not incite violence: Well, you are only preventing that moron that day, because by night, they will get another gun!


I want to wretch my guts out every time I see these articles. This is the basis for the "One Gun a Month Club" Well, little Johnny is not going to adhere to this law, nor to the other laws on the book. That is why SOMEONE MUST PAY FOR THIS. If not the child, then the parent. This is a MAJOR problem...why...because I ABIDE by the laws of the book and am a F'ing tax payer in this s*it hole Kommonwealth. If I have to give birth every time I renew my LTC-A and have to make my family that much insecure every night by locking up my friends...this is BS.

The sad part is, who ends up paying in the end for this inability to enforce the laws on the book:

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."

Unfortunately sir, no, these are the inactions that precipitate another funeral for a child.

 

[jkelly]

I don't see why you have to assume anything about his statement, it doesn't effect you.---zombi

I asked if he beat his child, as he said he did, and if that was legal in Ohio. I don’t see why that should bother you as it doesn’t affect you! Yet for some reason it seems to.

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.---zombi

If it helps, I don't believe half the shit people say on the internet, anyway.---zombi

I have a tendency to mean what I say, others like you evidently don’t.

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.---zombi

It’s nice you felt bad for the guy whose post advocated beating a child, yet you were upset with those who questioned the statement. As for jumping up peoples *sses it’s not an action I’m familiar with, so I’ll leave that to you!

Maybe you should stop worrying if I'm worrying about other people worrying about what others are worrying about. ---zombi

If you practiced what you preached then we wouldn’t be talking, would we? No, of course not.


jkelly

 

[JimB]

didn't read all the replies

I am so pissed. What in hell are we doing with Licenses, and
the prerequisites to obtain them... and to put up (in some towns)
with the local Chief who may deny...

If they find a gun, and its owner has no license it carries a one
year mandatory jail sentence.... BULLSHIT.

This sets a very bad example, "don't worry, if they find it
i'll get another one... f*** them...

Want to get real upset,,, there is a little know law in Meninostan
that says,,,, if a gangbanger has a gun and is on the street with
it and sees the cops coming, all he has to do his go inside his
residence and it becomes only a $500 fine.... makes you feel
real good.

THERE"S a lot of bending over when it comes to enforcement
but try in a "non issue" town to get a license....

sorry for the rant,,,,,, but this bothers me.

JimB

 

[sig shooter]

these reminds me of hitlers stormtroopers going aroud homes looking for jews, its sad that people would let cops inside there homes without warrents.

 

[dwarven1]

Grammarian hat ON! (to paraphrase LenS)

I'm hoping that what Jose meant is that his daughter would get the spanking of her life - "beating" has a whole 'nother connotation, which I think is what is getting everyone's knickers in a twist. Unless Jose corrects me, I'm going to assume that that is what he meant and not go nuclear on him.

 

[drgrant]

"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.

Legalities aside, he's still right that it's an end run/wallhack
around the 4th amendment. The notional here is getting the
guys with badges to show up at someones house and throw their
weight around- even if that person is allowed to deny entry, etc,
it's still basically a harassment system. It wouldn't be any
different than having a policy in place where the police ask to
search your car on EVERY traffic stop; many people would falsely
believe that they HAD to allow the search "because it is a police
officer" etc. I realize people shouldn't be that ignorant of
their rights, but allowing a policy to exist where the officers
essentially are trying to circumvent due process just has this
inherent wrongness/abuse of power connotation attached to it.


-Mike

 

[z0mbi]

*plenty of misconstrued statements and twisting context of quotes*

jkelly

Drama much? It's like arguing with a Democrat.

 

[jkelly]

Let's see your argument has no logic to it, your argument is only about how you “feel”, you wish to control what other people do while at the same time not actually following the ideas you expound and when your emotionally base argument gets shredded you call your opponent names.


What's next calling me mean spirited?

jkelly

 

[jkelly]

Oh, if you can show me where I misconstrued a statement or twisted a context I'd be more then happy to discuss the error with you.

But just because you may have said something you didn't mean or meant something you didn't say does not mean I made an error.


jkelly

 

[the_doctor]

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 thought that it did. You only have to make a reasonable argument. You can present to the judge that 95 houses were made open and this individual did not. They will probably gather intelligence reports on the house or something else. A "reasonable massachusetts mind" will intrepret a refusal into probable cause.

I thought that we went through this debacle with the DNA witchhunt and they(DA) did claim refusal as part of probable cause in regards to obtaining DNA from someone.

Bill

 

[Riverside]

The Nothing to Hide Notion

I thought that it did. You only have to make a reasonable argument. You can present to the judge that 95 houses were made open and this individual did not. They will probably gather intelligence reports on the house or something else. A "reasonable massachusetts mind" will intrepret a refusal into probable cause.

I thought that we went through this debacle with the DNA witchhunt and they(DA) did claim refusal as part of probable cause in regards to obtaining DNA from someone.

Bill

I agree with your statement: Most people would say that "if you have nothing to hide, then you should allow the search". We have been lulled into accepting this argument and it is completely wrong. Whether or not someone has something to hide is only secondary to "why do you want to search me?" We have given up so many rights just trying to get along and not be considered a hostile citizen.
I used to be of the same thinking: "if you have nothing to hide, why not allow the search?" Maturity and plain old life experience has shown me that the wiser course of action is to uphold the Constitution and be prepared to "lawyer up".
Best Regards.

 

[RKG]

I thought that it did. You only have to make a reasonable argument. You can present to the judge that 95 houses were made open and this individual did not. They will probably gather intelligence reports on the house or something else. A "reasonable massachusetts mind" will intrepret a refusal into probable cause.

I thought that we went through this debacle with the DNA witchhunt and they(DA) did claim refusal as part of probable cause in regards to obtaining DNA from someone.

Bill

No Masachusetts judge will infer probable cause to authorize a search based on the sole fact that the proprietor of the premises denies permission for a consensual search. Why? Because that act (denial of consent) is a perfectly lawful assertion of a constitutional right, which any number of folks might exercise based solely on principle and not because they were conscious of the need to hide something.

Yes, we did go through this. No, the DA never made any such assertion. Yes, the soliciting of voluntary samples was upheld.

What may be misleading you is the scenario (often depicted on television and, for that matter, often encountered on the street) where a police officer who does have probable cause to search nonetheless solicits consent (faster and easier than securing the premises and obtaining a warrant), and observes that, if consent is denied, he (the officer) will (as he may) secure the premises and seek a warrant. This, too, does not amount to "coercion;" it is merely laying out for the dude the facts of life.

 

[Cato]

In my opinion this whole scheme especially not charging those individuals that illegally possess any firearms found violates the MA constitution. Specifically it violates the separation of powers. The people authorized certain powers to each branch. The legislature makes law, the executive enforces the law and the judiciary interprets the law and administers justice.

The MA constitution goes out of its way to drive home the separation of powers in the first part of the constitution. The first section is entitled "A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".

In Article XXX it reads:

"Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

The police which is an arm of the executive is not authorized by the people to act as the judicial and administer justice on the street by "acquitting" or discharging someone of their obligation to follow the law; in this case illegal possession of a firearm.

This all just illustrates the power grab by the executive branches of the various state governments as well as the federal since the founding.

 

[jkelly]

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.---Gabe

Yes we all know that it is human nature be more dismissive of someone’s actions that we like then those actions of someone we dislike.

But either side can be used to dismiss the other as biased so it’s not rally a winning argument for anything, but rather just fluff.

I wanted to understand what jose meant by the statement “she would get the beating of her life. Period.” and what the laws in Ohio are regarding beating your child.

I wanted to understand if his statement was just ego building macho Bull S*it (which is what I think it was) or if he beats his kid. I don’t see anything wrong with wanting to understand that whether you personally like him or not. It’s not something I’d ask him if he didn’t post it to the world.


jkelly

 

[RKG]

In my opinion this whole scheme especially not charging those individuals that illegally possess any firearms found violates the MA constitution. Specifically it violates the separation of powers. The people authorized certain powers to each branch. The legislature makes law, the executive enforces the law and the judiciary interprets the law and administers justice.

The MA constitution goes out of its way to drive home the separation of powers in the first part of the constitution. The first section is entitled "A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts".

In Article XXX it reads:

"Article XXX. In the government of this commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them: the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them: the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them: to the end it may be a government of laws and not of men."

The police which is an arm of the executive is not authorized by the people to act as the judicial and administer justice on the street by "acquitting" or discharging someone of their obligation to follow the law; in this case illegal possession of a firearm.

This all just illustrates the power grab by the executive branches of the various state governments as well as the federal since the founding.

Interesting argument.

What you are referring to is known as the "delegation doctrine," which basically holds that legislative judgments can only be made by the legislature and cannot be delegated to the executive (even if the legislature wants to do so). There are a couple of problems with this:

A) Prosecutorial discretion -- the power to decline to initiate prosecution for reasons other than a belief that the prosecution would not be successful -- is a recognized exception to the rule, which long antedated the separation of powers.

B) The delegation doctrine is pretty much dead; died in the mid-1920s, both federally and in Massachusetts. How else could it be that we have bureaucrats all over the place making profound policy judgment: to pick one example, the AG (a member of the executive) deciding what guns may be sold?

Your argument would be on slightly better footing if you relied on the provisions of Barley-Fox that explicitly negate prosecutorial (and, for that matter, judicial sentencing) discretion. For instance:

"The sentence imposed on such person shall not be reduced to less than 18 months, nor suspended, nor shall any person convicted under this subsection be eligible for probation, parole, work release, or furlough or receive any deduction from his sentence for good conduct until he shall have served 18 months of such sentence; provided, however, that the commissioner of correction may on the recommendation of the warden, superintendent, or other person in charge of a correctional institution, grant to an offender committed under this subsection a temporary release in the custody of an officer of such institution for the following purposes only: to attend the funeral of a relative; to visit a critically ill relative; or to obtain emergency medical or psychiatric service unavailable at said institution. Prosecutions commenced under this subsection shall neither be continued without a finding nor placed on file." G.L. (2006 ed.) ch. 269, sec. 10(a) (partial).

The problem is, this does not explicitly say that a police officer cognizant of a violation of section 10(a) must seek a criminal complaint. Compare ch. 269, sec. 10(j):

"Any officer in charge of an elementary or secondary school, college or university or any faculty member or administrative officer of an elementary or secondary school, college or university failing to report violations of this paragraph shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and punished by a fine of not more than five hundred dollars."

Now, don't misread me. I agree with the sentiment that a program that essentially grants amnesty in advance to gang-bangers for doing what peaceable folks would go to jail for is a horrible idea. But that doesn't make it unconstitutional (or, for that matter, a violation of a statute).

 

[z0mbi]

Oh, if you can show me where I misconstrued a statement or twisted a context I'd be more then happy to discuss the error with you.

Gladly.

I have a tendency to mean what I say, others like you evidently don’t.

A mean spirited retort to a comment I made in which I stated I often exaggerate my feelings for humorous effect, such as telling my friend I'm gonna stab him in the face if he doesn't hurry up at the store, for example. Insinuating that I am a liar because every word that comes out of my mouth isn't 100% accurately depicting my true feelings and upcoming actions I think is a bit of a freaking stretch.

you were upset with those who questioned the statement

At no point was I upset with anyone. My posts clearly reflect a 'hey, lets all calm down' attitude, yet you read them as confrontational for some reason and began to badger me.

whose post advocated beating a child

I don't know the guy, so I may be going out on a limb here, but I SERIOUSLY doubt he is advocating child abuse. Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but I'm beginning to feel just as persecuted for assuming he didn't mean it literally as someone who actually beats a child would have been.

when your emotionally base argument gets shredded you call your opponent names

Please quote where I called you a name, I'd love to see it. Also, please follow that up with where you 'shredded' my 'argument' with your landslide of 'evidence'.

(edit: Oh, by calling you a name, did you mean when I said it's like arguning with a democrat? if so, sorry, I wasn't calling you a democrat directly, just illustrating that as calm as I was trying to be, you seemed to be blowing up at me emotionally regardless of what I did/said)

But just because you may have said something you didn't mean or meant something you didn't say does not mean I made an error.

Maybe I'm unintentionally reading more hate into what you're typing than you're intending, I don't know...but I suppose perhaps I didn't make myself very clear. I have no position to take on beating a child, him beating his children, or anyone beating anything. If I did desire to form such an opinion, I would wait for a topic to come up relating to the subject and then form my thoughts. I merely thought it would be nice if everyone calmed down, got back on topic, and stopped the lynching of Jose based on 'my feeling' that he did not mean it literally. So, yeah...you're right. I had an opinion, and that opinion was the basis for my argument. Same as you.

Sorry to everyone else for perpetuating this off-topic debate. And sorry to you, jkelly, if I unintentionally insulted you.

 

[dwarven1]

 

[FPrice]

Agreed. And to think that I helped create this trainwreck.

 

[dwarven1]

Here ya go...

 

[FPrice]

I knew that I could count on you, you lovable lug you!

Here ya go...

 

[dwarven1]

I knew that I could count on you, you lovable lug you!

 

[Kar98 Sniper]

Is this thread over yet?

 

[jkelly]

Quote:
I have a tendency to mean what I say, others like you evidently don’t.

A mean spirited retort to a comment I made in which I stated I often exaggerate my feelings for humorous effect, such as telling my friend I'm gonna stab him in the face if he doesn't hurry up at the store, for example. Insinuating that I am a liar because every word that comes out of my mouth isn't 100% accurately depicting my true feelings and upcoming actions I think is a bit of a freaking stretch.---zombi

Not mean spirited at all I just quoted your post and pointed out how I am different. I passed no judgment in my statement and saw no attempt at deceit.

Quote:
you were upset with those who questioned the statement

At no point was I upset with anyone.---zombi

Just felt bad for the guy getting pig-piled over a stupid comment.---zombi

I think “felt bad” equals being “upset”.

…yet you read them as confrontational for some reason and began to badger me.---zombi

Not badgering just pointing out ambiguities in your statements.

Quote:
whose post advocated beating a child

Just my opinion. Feel free to disagree, but I'm beginning to feel just as persecuted for assuming he didn't mean it literally as someone who actually beats a child would have been.---

I don’t disagree with your opinion, I disagree with you suggesting actions by others based on your opinion while dismissing theirs. I think their actions should be based on their opinions, not yours.
Quote:
when your emotionally base argument gets shredded you call your opponent names

Please quote where I called you a name, I'd love to see it.---zombi

(edit: Oh, by calling you a name, did you mean when I said it's like arguning with a democrat? if so, sorry, I wasn't calling you a democrat directly, just illustrating that as calm as I was trying to be, you seemed to be blowing up at me emotionally regardless of what I did/said)---sombi

You answered your own question. I pointed out who really was acting like a democrat (Oh and by the way you did call me “mean spirited”). By the way I didn’t blow up at you at all.

Also, please follow that up with where you 'shredded' my 'argument' with your landslide of 'evidence'.----zombi

Please see this and all my prior posts to you.
Quote:
But just because you may have said something you didn't mean or meant something you didn't say does not mean I made an error.

Maybe I'm unintentionally reading more hate into what you're typing…---zombi

I have no hate, anger or any other emotional involvement in these posts, sorry.

I merely thought it would be nice if everyone calmed down, got back on topic, and stopped the lynching of Jose based on 'my feeling' that he did not mean it literally.---

I have not been able to determine what jose meant by his post. If others took offense to jose post that’s between him and them and as you said (at least some what) is none of other people’s business.


jkelly

 

[StuckInMA]

" They that can give up liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. "

-Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania.