Skip to comments.
Boston cops seek invites to search homes
The Centre Daily Times ^
| Nov. 17, 2007
| NA
Posted on 11/19/2007 1:17:11 PM PST by neverdem
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
It's for the children. This is OK here. It doesn't involve intercepting the messages or conversations of terrorists who want to kill us.
1
posted on
11/19/2007 1:17:12 PM PST
by
neverdem
To: neverdem
Whitey: "You don't expect Mummbles to to go after those who murder informers, do you?"
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodies?
2
posted on
11/19/2007 1:22:49 PM PST
by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: neverdem
Of note is they intend to confiscate the weapons found, but no one will be arrested. Makes sense......../sarc
3
posted on
11/19/2007 1:23:21 PM PST
by
gidget7
( Vote for the Arsenal of Democracy, because America RUNS on Duncan!)
To: neverdem
Yeah, this will really work.
“What ‘chu mean? That ain’y my baby’s. You pigs put that gun there!”
4
posted on
11/19/2007 1:25:08 PM PST
by
toddlintown
(Five bullets and Lennon goes down. Yet not one hit Yoko. Discuss.)
To: gidget7
I think this is a bad idea for many, many reasons.
Once again, outlaws will have guns and guns will be outlawed. It’s just another step in that direction under the guise of “crime fighting” and “safety.”
5
posted on
11/19/2007 1:36:39 PM PST
by
henkster
(The koran is "Mein Kampf" written in funny curlie-Q's)
To: henkster
Yeah no kidding huh? They have all the means to get these illegal guns off the street. Police officers are under so many restrictions, they don’t allow the officers to do that. Searching without cause is totally unconstitutional, no matter what they are searching for.
6
posted on
11/19/2007 1:40:27 PM PST
by
gidget7
( Vote for the Arsenal of Democracy, because America RUNS on Duncan!)
To: neverdem
"They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm," police Commissioner Edward Davis said of parents. Is he bleepin' kiddin'? Most of these parents are either clueless as to what their kids are into or just don't give a bleep. AND for the small numbers that do finally figure out what's going on, apparently they're not smart enough to turn their kid in..........
7
posted on
11/19/2007 1:41:08 PM PST
by
rockabyebaby
(HEY JORGE, SHUT UP AND BUILD THE BLEEPING FENCE, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.)
To: neverdem
"They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm,"Are you kidding me?
8
posted on
11/19/2007 1:46:25 PM PST
by
JTHomes
To: henkster
Well, it is a plan (sort of).
Boston has successfully prosecuted about 8% of its homicides.
They can’t let THAT come out.
9
posted on
11/19/2007 1:48:28 PM PST
by
Diogenesis
(Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum)
To: neverdem
To: AnnaZ; HangFire
To: rockabyebaby
The communities themselves have to become strongly anti-gang, reach out to law enforcement pledging to finger gang members. The police are "handcuffed" not only by political correctness, but by Miranda and other mandates. The people who were meant to be protected by the restrictions on crime investigations are the ones hurt worst by them.
If those things weren't fouled up, there would be no motivation for this trampling of 2nd Amendment rights.
To: neverdem
Anybody remember the good old days when the major parental concern about their kids and firearms was how to afford a really nice one to put under the Christmas Tree?
13
posted on
11/19/2007 1:52:33 PM PST
by
Hegemony Cricket
(You can't seriously tell me you think we need more laws, or that we don't already have too many.)
To: gidget7
Searching without cause is totally unconstitutional, no matter what they are searching for. Consensual searches are completely legal.
14
posted on
11/19/2007 1:53:49 PM PST
by
PAR35
To: NutCrackerBoy
The communities themselves have to become strongly anti-gang, reach out to law enforcement pledging to finger gang members. The police are "handcuffed" not only by political correctness, but by Miranda and other mandates. The people who were meant to be protected by the restrictions on crime investigations are the ones hurt worst by them. No one or very very few are willing to finger gang members for fear of retaliation,,,,and as I said, most of the parents don't have a clue and the rest don't give a bleep. The "maya" of Boston does stupid things like handing out gift cards to Target in return for a gun, no questions asked, turn in a gun get a gift card,,,,,allowing said animal to sell said gift card and turn around and buy more guns,,,,way to go "maya". As for the police, you're right, they have little or no power here, they can't do much of anything without getting into a problem with the PC crowd.
15
posted on
11/19/2007 1:59:12 PM PST
by
rockabyebaby
(HEY JORGE, SHUT UP AND BUILD THE BLEEPING FENCE, ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS.)
To: neverdem
Boston parents must be different from the ones around here.
Parents in most other places can toss their kids rooms, confiscate contraband of all sorts, dispose of it, and help teach the kid what good behavior is.
Somehow Boston parents don’t have that capability. Or, the Boston cops don’t think they, do, or the cops use subtle coercion to work their way inside for a search and all these assurances are just reassuring noises for the rest of the country so we don’t get riled up.
I think the St Louis experiment got 98% compliance because it’s difficult to say no to a bunch of beefy armed guys with body armor who say “We want in, OK?”
If they say they only wish to search the kids rooms, the kids must be pretty dumb to keep heat in their rooms and not under the living room couch, which apparently the cops are saying is off limits to their consensual searches.
16
posted on
11/19/2007 2:10:39 PM PST
by
DBrow
To: NutCrackerBoy
The communities themselves have to become strongly anti-gang, reach out to law enforcement pledging to finger gang members. The police are "handcuffed" not only by political correctness, but by Miranda and other mandates. The people who were meant to be protected by the restrictions on crime investigations are the ones hurt worst by them. Spoken like a person who has never feared the retaliatory murder of oneself, and/or their family.
17
posted on
11/19/2007 2:13:12 PM PST
by
SengirV
To: neverdem
BOSTON Boston police will ask parents in high-crime areas to let detectives search their children's bedrooms for guns without warrants in a new anti-crime program. This from the city that went to war over warrantless searches using Writs of Assistance.
I guess the Intolerable Acts are a lot more tolerable now.
18
posted on
11/19/2007 2:13:56 PM PST
by
Centurion2000
(False modesty is as great a sin as false pride.)
To: neverdem
No disrespect to the police; but it’s like letting the fox into the hen house.
Also, you let them in the door and you are never going to get them out. The government will find all sorts of ways to invade your privacy. You will lose it.
19
posted on
11/19/2007 2:15:26 PM PST
by
freekitty
((May the eagles long fly our beautiful and free American sky.))
To: neverdem
There will be people here who will argue, "Why not let them in there is nothing to hide?" Well, if there's nothing to hide, they should stay out.
Advertise a special number parents can call if they want, but actively going to homes and flashing a badge can lead to abuse, because people are prone to make decisions based on fear of authority and not knowing the law rather than a informed, rational decision. The police know this.
The article gives away the fact that drugs will not be ignored. Nor will anything else, mind you. "Do you have any guns in the home, Mr./Mrs. ____________? Are they properly stored? Mind if we check while we're here?"
I'm against putting people in a position that by saying "no" to a search, the police officer can assume in any way that there's guilt. That's why I don't like sobriety checkpoints -- if you don't have time to wait in line and you turn around, you're presumed guilty until proven innocent.
What does a sobriety checkpoint have to do with this? Baby steps, that's all I have to say.
20
posted on
11/19/2007 2:24:41 PM PST
by
scott7278
("Before I give you the benefit of my reply, I would like to know what we are talking about.")
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-55 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson