Bob Owens

The saddest truth in politics is that people get the leaders they deserve

FBI, Boston PD raided Watertown homes without warrants in terrorist hunt

Written By: Bob - Apr• 21•13

One upon a time, in a nation far away, there used to be a 4th Amendment requirement for search warrants before government agents invaded your yard, or garage, or your home.

Not anymore!

Welcome to the new police state, where the government uses the excuse of the hunt for a single 19-year-old stoner terrorist to order 1 million people to stay in their homes for 20 hours, shut down all public transportation in and out of the city, and violate a list of civil rights a mile long.

Sadly, they’ve proven they are all to happy to point an automatic weapon at your face if you dare to dissent.

I find the citizenry’s willingness to accept this sort of police state far more worrisome than any terrorist cell with home brewed bombs. A terrorist can only take a handful of lives.

A government that refuses to respect its citizens is capable of far more gruesome tyranny, as the mass graves of 262 million murdered by their own governments in 20th Century democides grimly attests.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.


  1. nobreakfast says:

    I’m constantly amazed by the fact that grown people don’t realize that governments, like all organizations, are run for the benefit of the people who run them, and that the government can and does do whatever it likes, without limit.

    • Treker says:

      Well said nobreakfast .Great quote from George Washington’s fare well address . Paraphrasing old George ” Government is not kindness or benevolence but brute force ” . We just witnessed that brute force . Do not stash all your firearms or ammo in one location , you will not have time to move them.

      • Comrade X says:

        Treker, one of me favorites:

        “Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
        George Washington

        Methinks government must be limited by keeping it within the fire-pit where it can keep you warm and/or cook your food if you want it to but when it gets out of the limitations of the fire pit; it can burn down your house and even kill you!

        George sure knew how to say a lot with only a few words!

        Today government has gotten out of control and see’s no limitation in way too many ways!

        Death before slavery!

  2. thesouthwasrght says:

    This was nothing more than a test run at the coming martial law. Period. Wanna catch a lone terrorist on the loose, under dubious circumstances to begin with? Have the locals canvas, knock on doors, ask a couple questions, educate the citizenry and let the system do it’s job. It is what ultimately got him anyway. But no. We live in grave times.

  3. I’m as strict a Constitutionalist as the next guy, but there have ALWAYS been imminent public safety exceptions to the 4th Amendment, in times of imminent public danger or crises.

    I note, for example, that these unwarranted searches of homes and garages only occurred in the immediate, narrow community where the police had good reason to believe (and turned out to be correct to believe, within a couple of blocks) that a terrorist bomber was hiding.

    This rationale was NOT used to justify similar searches in New York, or Texas, or Maine, or even the next town over. In addition, these searches were of very short duration, during the crises, and were stopped immediately after.

    The Constitution is the core of our Republic, but it is not a suicide pact.

    For fellow Constitutionalists, I suggest we keep in mind the context in which the 4th Amendment was enacted–it was in response to routine and truly abusive searches and seizures by the King’s troops without even a pretext of rationale cause other than they wanted to. The 4th Amendment was NOT enacted to prevent the hot pursuit and capture of a terrorist bomber.

    Just one guy’s two cents.

    • Sharpshooter says:

      Ever been involved in a door-to-door search?

      I thought so.

      The propensity of some to make excuses for the police state is what brought us…well…the police state.



        Ah, a tough guy. And eloquent, besides.

        Just who we want representing the Constitutional position–the guy who shouts down discussion by calling people “PUKE!”.


      • Incidentally, the fact that you concede that the searches would have been acceptable had a nuke been involved is also a concession of the fundamental principle that the 4th Amendment is not absolute under all circumstances–at some point, it is permissible to side-step it for matters of imminent public safety.

        To you, the imminent risk of a nuke is enough. To others, the imminent risk of a bomb that can shred whole men, women, and children, not to mention tear the limbs off their bodies and send scores of others to the hospital with serious injuries, is sufficient.

        The precise place where one draws the line is one upon which reasonable people can disagree.

        That such a line exists, however, is both simply rational thinking and completely consistent with both the written Constitution and the Founders’ intent.

    • Eugene Sorrentino says:

      Bull crap. Rather get shot by these goons than submit to this

    • lineman says:

      I wonder then why the whole city was shut down if they knew where he was in the immediate narrow community that they were searching… You remind me of someone I saw under a bridge one time…I love how you sound like you know a lot about the constitution and maybe you do but the devil sure knows about the bible also…

      • ShallNOTBeInfringed says:

        “the devil sure knows about the bible also…”

        …outstanding. +1

      • lineman says:

        Law of Self Defense reminds me of Peter telling Jesus he didn’t need to go to the cross and Jesus says get thee behind me Satan…Maybe I’m giving him to much credit though and he’s not a Patriot(Disciple) …

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Armed, dangerous, desperate men run from the police every damned day in this country.

      Why’d this one merit such a reaction? Why won’t the next one?

  4. Veeshir says:

    I find the citizenry’s willingness to accept this sort of police state far more worrisome than any terrorist cell with home brewed bombs.

    That’s why I left NYS many years ago.

    They have the gov’t they want. If you asked Boston residents they would agree with what was done.

    They’re good little subjects and they like it that way.

    That’s why I have no sympathy for any of them. Like the NYC guy who was arrested for using an illegal gun to thwart a robbery.

    They have the gov’t they want. May they enjoy it.

  5. Cole says:

    It is worrisome how some believe expediency in a manhunt somehow trumps our rights.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Here’s the thing, though: the search, as conducted, wasn’t “expedient”. It was wasteful and ineffective.

      What worked was someone seeing something they knew was out of place; an every day citizen with an attentive eye.

      The “lock down” removed most of those from the search, which is why they couldn’t find him until the “lock down” was ended.

      • Cole says:

        It was sloppy and unsuccessful I agree. But the excuse from the government is that they needed to suspend the rights of citizens to make their job easier. You will hear more of this going forward. It’s too difficult to get wiretap warrants so just ignore the law and read all the email. It’s too difficult to get information from the surviving terrorist if we mirandize him so just ignore his rights as a citizen. All your guns make it difficult to keep you safe so we’ll send officers to your door to collect them. We’re the government. It’s our job to keep you safe. Your rights interfere with that. And we’re going to make our job easier by ignoring or eradicating your rights. Efficiency isn’t the goal but it will be an excuse. In fact, the more inefficient the government is the more money and power they can demand to fix it.

  6. Jaynie59 says:

    The thing that gets me, and I know nothing about guns or law enforcement techniques, is that the way they went about these seemingly random searches put more people in danger IF the kid had actually been hiding in an occupied house and was armed with a gun. The police presence was so overwhelming and noisy that IF he had been holding people hostage and knew the cops were coming, which he would have to know since they were so loud about it, he could have just taken a pillow or something and shot everybody in the house. Who would hear it over the all the noise the cops were making? Remember Beslan. When those Chechen terrorists knew the siege was ending with a raid they killed as many of the hostages as they could, including shooting little kids in the back as they fled for their lives.

    I don’t know. The Constitutional questions aside, it seems to me to be the stupidist thing the cops could have done if he had been that house.

    At least they didn’t shoot the dog.

    • Right_2_Bear says:

      It’s a miracle an innocent bystander wasn’t hit by a stray bullet from the Mall Ninjas 200+ round fusillade taking down the older perp. No wonder DHS needs 2 billion rounds.

      • Chuck says:

        As far as we know. The media isn’t very conscientious about picking up on that sort of thing. Guarantee there were houses hit by stray rounds and I’ve not seen a single thing reported on that. Don’t want to mess up the narrative of the heroic defenders of Boston capturing the 10 foot tall evil terrorist. You know…the one who was bleeding to death under a tarp in a boat parked in someone’s back yard just outside the police perimeter…

      • Jaynie59 says:

        I’m confused about the shoot out with the younger brother in the boat. I’ve read conflicting stories that make no sense. If he was half dead and hiding under the tarp covering the boat, what were the cops shooting at? The boat, I guess. I read one story that said his throat wound, which is preventing him from speaking, was self-inflicted. It was gross. It said he shot himself in the mouth but the bullet went out the back of his neck instead of his brain.

        The only thing all the stories make clear is that nobody knows their motive. It’s a total mystery. Yeah, right.

    • louielouie says:

      and I know nothing about guns or law enforcement techniques,

      me thinks you know more that you let on.
      well said.

  7. dnice says:

    I agree with Law of Self-Defense. I think it was pretty clear the threat they posed and the first priority was nuetralizing that threat and not worrying about having to have attorneys along in the SWAT car.

    • Chuck says:

      You mean the threat of bleeding out under a tarp in a boat parked in someone’s back yard? Yeah. Okay.

      • lineman says:

        And if the homeowner would of been armed he would of captured the guy… What a joke we have become that people cannot or not allowed to protect themselves or their property…

      • Are you suggesting that the police knew he was bleeding out under a tarp while they were searching homes for him?

        Does that make any kind of sense?

        What the police DID know, having interviewed the person from whom they jacked their stolen car, is that the two bombers intended to drive down to New York City and commit further bombings, suggesting a reasonable possibility that they were in possession of IEDs suitable for that mission.

        If a known bomber actively fleeing pursuing authorities and on a mission to blow up more bombs isn’t an imminent threat to public safety, I don’t know what would qualify.

      • Real Deal says:

        LoSD, they reported a blood trail several hours before apprehending the suspect. So they knew he was wounded, and severely at that before they found him.

      • Chuck says:

        It was widely reported by the media after the cops killed Tamerlan that Dzhokhar was wounded.

        Furthermore, he abandoned his car and escaped on foot which is why the police lost him.

        Perhaps you can explain how one skinny teenager in Boston, wounded and bleeding and on foot is going to plant IEDs in NYC all by his lonesome?

      • Phelps says:

        What the police DID know, having interviewed the person from whom they jacked their stolen car, is that the two bombers intended to drive down to New York City and commit further bombings, suggesting a reasonable possibility that they were in possession of IEDs suitable for that mission.

        If that is what they “knew” then how does that justify searching a place that is NOT on the way to NYC?

    • Rob Crawford says:

      Armed, dangerous, desperate men run from the police every day. Should every city be placed on “lock down” during such events?

  8. bubba says:

    The bombers acted in the manner and location they did because the citizens of Boston are effectively disarmed, hence they knew they would be relatively safe. Government understands this also.

    An armed society is a polite society.

    • I live in a near suburb of Boston, and have had a CCW here for 20+ years. I was not at the Marathon finish line the day of the attack, but I have walked past that spot hundreds of times (my now-wife, then-girlfriend, lived a block-and-a-half from the spot of the explosions, and we often walked/ate/entertained in the area).

      On any random day I’m typically carrying a 1911 with 8+1, a spare 8-round mag, pepper spray, and a reasonably sized blade.

      None of that would have done the slightest bit of good had a bomb gone off at my feet, with the person who set the bomb in place long gone.

      I’m not here to defend Boston or Massachusetts–the moment my kids graduate high school, I’m out of here like a shot, and I think it’s a Constitutional travesty how they treat law-abiding gun owners in this Commonwealth–but we either need to keep the discussion rational or have no complaint when we’re type-cast as some kind of crazy fringe group. An “armed Boston” would have done nothing to prevent this kind of bombing.

      • bubba says:

        Submit to the terrorist or the LEO, you can make the choice yourself as for me I’ll not surrender my liberty to anyone or entity. I do not live in boston and the LEO in our area are informed enough to politely ask permision to conduct a search our homes, not at the point of a gun.

      • bystrom says:

        Well, I am happy that you are armed. I am just amazed that the people willingly sat at home and let law enforcement search and seize people. I do not see any pursuit, and the exigent circumstance argument is a stretch. What I see in the video is abuse by the police.

        Equally amazing and hard for me to believe that the defiant people of Boston, who fought and defeated the British 238 years earlier, to the day, have been weakened and would tolerate such abuse by the modern day version of British Regulars.

        No, I am not hear to stereotype or sling bricks at the people Boston and Massachusetts. I wrap for the people of Boston, the Commonwealth and my country. We have fallen and it ought to stop now.

      • lineman says:

        Your a Constitutionalists but you have to ask for permission to bear your arms… Sounds like your just all confused…If you are real and not a troll maybe you should think about what comes out of your mouth next time…

  9. david7134 says:

    To me the bombing was of little consequence. It was but another in a long line of violent acts that have occurred secondary to the failure of our leadership. However, the tyranny of the authorities is beyond belief. Why did they have to physically enter people’s homes? Why couldn’t they ask for cooperation from the home owners to check out their property and not have the cops do it? I would expect that Boston is going to be brought to its knees as a consequence of the coming legal actions from the stupid government actions. But how do we stop this? It is a pattern. They did the same with Katrina and other catastrophes. It follows the pattern that the bad guys are the law abiding citizens and that they are treated in a different manner than the elite. This goes for drug use, medical care and any other activity that we have. Those that adhere to Islam are treated with greater respect than those that mind their own business. We are all treated like terrorist rather than culling out those that believe the religious junk preached in the mosques.

  10. Icedog says:

    The law is very specific. A warrantless or non-consented household search is only permissible with probably cause, to prevent the destruction of evidence, or in conjunction with an arrest. If probable cause was present that a suspect may have entered the house (was witnessed climbing the fence behind the house, discovery of a busted window, screen ripped off, etc.), the police would have legal justification to enter the quarters…although obtaining the homeowners consent is always preferred.

    In this case, do we know that police specifically did not ask for consent? Are there any confirmed cases that a homeowner refused consent and the police entered anyway?

    • Since when is “probable cause” specific? It’s amorphous, along with the facts of the particular situation, subject to the reasonable and retrospective interpretation of a judge (assuming a warrant hasn’t already been obtained, as in the situation we’re discussing).

      A known terroristic bomber is seen fleeing into a particular home. Does that provide sufficient probable cause for the police to search the home for him without a warrant? I would argue yes.

      What if it is a single home, but a two-family residence, and the police aren’t sure which? Do they need a warrant for both? Waiting now while the terrorist finishes arming the device, when the only difference form the prior scenario is the building hosts a second kitchen? Does that make any kind of sense?

      What if it’s a 20-residence apartment building they saw him flee into, or 40-residence, or 60-residence? Do they need a warrant for every apartment in the building, knowing full well a deadly bomb could go off every instant they are waiting for all 20, or 40, or 60 warrants?

      The concept of “hot pursuit” is well recognized in both common criminal law and Constitutional law. In this instance the police weren’t searching homes at random, they had a reasonable belief that he was likely in one of the homes targeted–and, as it turned out, they were only a couple of blocks off.

      Anyone who wants to argue that such police conduct in an imminent public safety crises and in hot pursuit is going to have to toss some court decisions into the mix in support of their position, or the discussion simply isn’t worth having.

      • Icedog says:

        LOSD, I was not arguing that the police were wrong in their actions. Without knowing the specific information they were acting on, no one can argue the legality of their actions.

        If there was probability that grounds for their actions existed, they were in the right. The key is if there actions were reasonable considering the information they had at the time.

        However, I would argue that “several blocks of houses” is too broad for warrantless and non-consentual search…and (IMHO) most judges would agree.

      • Phelps says:

        Since when is “probable cause” specific?

        Since at least 1813 in Lock v United States.

  11. Neo says:

    File this under … No shit Shakespeare

    CAMBRIDGE, Mass. (AP) — A Massachusetts police official say the brothers suspected of bombing the Boston Marathon before having shootouts with authorities didn’t have gun permits.

  12. Courage Corner says:

    I’m not a lawyer or constitutional law expert. Im a 17 year police officer and SWAT team member. Correct me if you can find definitive proof. But… I think in this instance the searches are covered under the doctrine of “FRESH PURSUIT”.

    If the perimeter is set and the searches begin within a reasonable amount of time and are not stopped, no warrant is needed. The officers are not searching for guns or contraband. They are searching for a violent terrorist who poses an IMMEDIATE AND IMMINENT threat to public safety. In the CONTINUOUS AND ONGOING search for the suspect the entry onto property and into homes would need no warrant. Each search would be considered a “PROTECTIVE SWEEP” If un-related contraband were located during the sweep, officers or agents would not be able to seize it but could exit and lock down the location and obtain a warrant. Contraband not related to the search for the suspect and seized would likely be thrown out of court and could even be returned.

    North Hollywood bank robbers Phillips and Mateseraanu had been stopped by Glendale police (Ca). During the traffic stop officers unlawfully searched the trunk of their car and discovered the AK and HK rifles that were later used in the shootout. They arrested them for the weapons. Because the search was unlawful they were released, the charges dropped and the weapons returned. (Forensic examination by a gun expert would have revealed the guns were unlawfully converted for full auto fire and resulted in the guns at least being confiscated and destroyed).

    In Watertown, the containment and search started after the termination of the pursuit. Probable cause to believe the suspect is within the containment is already established.

    If law enforcement showed up randomly and decided to go door to door, they would need a warrant. In that case they would need an individual warrant for each address they searched. Each warrant would have to stand on its own merits. It would be granted or denied by a judge based on specific probable cause.

    I DO NOT TRUST THE GOVERNMENT WITH MY 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS. However I think you have it wrong in this case. As gun rights advocates it is easy for us to find black helicopter plots behind every badge. We are absolutely under siege. But you have to believe that MOST law enforcement officers (especially local/municipal and county officers) do not want to invade our homes to disarm us.

    • Man-Bear-Pig says:

      Hi-ho! Retired police officer here from LARGE west coast metro department. Vice, gangs and lots of patrol time.

      It scares me that you think what happened was legal. There is no way that a reasonable person could articulate that the police were in hot pursuit. The simple truth is the trail was many hours cold, hence the door to door searches of an entire suburb — and the eventual lifting of some sort of half-ass martial law.

      Looking at the pictures and the videos it is obvious that some sort of testosterone-fueled, cluster fuck was going on — and there was a complete breakdown in leadership from top to bottom.

      Pulling innocent civilians from their homes at gun point?

      Remind me: who the hell were the terrorists?

    • fly says:

      A SWAT member thinks the police state tactics in Boston were justified. There’s a shocker for you.

    • lineman says:

      Give me any reason there is a need for SWAT and I will give you an answer that will nullify it…The government creates the problem then gives a solution of taking even more of our rights and freedoms…

      • Michael says:

        The government creates the problem then gives a solution of taking even more of our rights and freedoms…and our dignity.

        We have been conditioned for decades to put the illusion of safety first,above all else.

        (the war on terror,the drug war,the war on crime,elective wars abroad,preemptive war)

        This is the language of tyranny.

        “CHILD SAFETY”
        Tyranny for the children’s sake,as if security theater is about protecting children — it didn’t protect that 8yo boy.

        Hundreds of cops at the finish line and not one of them were paying attention enough to notice two guys taking off their backpacks and leaving them behind.Felony stupid,the police.

        The 4th of July is this nations most important,most relevant holiday,and the safety nazis banned the traditional observation,with fireworks.They did this long before 9/11,supposedly in the name of safety…Never mind Halloween,children going out at night to ask strangers for candy,what could possibly go wrong…But there are no restrictions.

        The real reason for outlawing the observance of the 4th of July,with fireworks,is because it symbolizes rebellion and revolutionary war.

        It has nothing to do with safety.

        “But children can get badly injured playing with fireworks.”

        They banned to use of fireworks by adults,as well…People get hurt and killed every day just taking a shower.You slip and fall,hit your head on the way down,then while unconscious under the water spray you breath in some of the water,and drown.

        Over 800,000 injuries and over 400 deaths each year related to bathing.

        Should we outlaw hygiene in the name of safety?

        Freedom first,and cleanliness is next to Godliness.

        We are told to observe the 4th of July the same way we are told to observe everything else,”EAT,SHOP,CONSUME”,and that’s it.

        Just forget about the meaning of anything,and forget history to or pretend that it can’t happen here.

        It already has,is and will in the future.All the bs that happens in the rest of the world,we are immune to none of it.

    • david7134 says:

      We had a bad guy, probably worse than this one loose in my neighborhood. The cops just came to the door and asked if everyone was ok and informed us of the problem. They then searched the yard and out buildings. That seemed reasonable. But to have cops show up at your door and demand entry at gun point, degrade you by ruffing you up and making you put your hands in the air, then entering your home without just cause or a warrant, that is against the law. If not, then we need to start a little rebellion as that is the action that the British used in the 1700’s. As I have said before, the cops have gotten too tyrannical and need to be brought to earth. In this case, they certainly were not “hero’s”, the guys were caught by citizens and authorities obviously were just in the way.

      • Michael says:

        Excellent points,there was no respect,it wasn’t just what they did but HOW they did it.

        It was outrageous behavior regardless of context.

        Man-Bear-Pig says:

        “Pulling innocent civilians from their homes at gun point?

        Remind me: who the hell were the terrorists?”

        All these goon squad tactics over a punk kid,it was total overkill.

        Professionals are supposed to keep their cool,especially in a crisis,but goon are not professionals.

        This is becoming more and more of a thugocracy.

        These are armed gangs with badges on.Period.

        What do they do in their off time,I bet they where those outfits to bed…They were waiting for some “action” for years,and when they finally got it,they like sharks in a feeding frenzy.

        Gangster government scumbags.

        Try this martial law sh-t nationwide.PLEEZ.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      How many hours do you believe “fresh pursuit” lasts? Why did it apply to an entire city?

    • Michael says:

      You may not be a lawyer,but you’d be a good paralegal.

      I have a two part hypothetical question about a court ordered lawful warranted search.

      If the police suspect you of being a heroin dealer,and raid your home a)do they immediately arrest you while conducting the search? and b)if they don’t find any heroin but do find other contraband such as a small amount of marijuana or a few unpaid for movie downloads on your pc,can they go ahead and pursue charges against you for that?..Or is warranted search limited strictly to what the warrant was issued for,and if they don’t find the heroin,then they take the cuffs off.

      On tv,if the cops show up at your door they can find a 101 different excuses to arrest you,and will.It’s automatic…My hope is,only on tv.

  13. pat says:

    I’m more against the boston lockdown because not only did it have dubious Constitutional backing, but more importantly it was just plain ineffective. I remember thinking “The whole city’s on edge and this guy’s photo is plastered everywhere. The city’s population has 650,000 eyes on the streets, and your police force only has 10,000. Why in the world would you intentionally handicap the resource that is over a half-million eyes on the street?” And what happened? AS SOON AS THEY LIFTED THE LOCKDOWN A CITIZEN DISCOVERED HIM! Geeez po-po, don’t make me say I told ya so.

  14. Mt Top Patriot says:

    Somebody wrote:
    Two kinds of terrorists, one’s who will do violence to your life
    and ones who will do violence to your constitutional rights.

    The first uses improvised explosive devices, the latter uses the
    powers of elected office.

    Me thinks the same government that demands we give up our liberty so to make it easier for it to protect us from terrorism has failed to do so, in truth this same system of tyranny has opened our borders, our sovereign earth below our feet, to every form of freeloader, sociopath and blood thirsty murdering religious freak, and in place of the utter incompetence of our leaders and manipulators, elitist treasonous scum they are, they themselves orchestrated an act of terrorism in the form of police state tactics upon the very people every fucking one of them swore on God and this Republic to protect from all enemies foreign and domestic.

    And to add insult to this assault upon our persons, our homes, our Liberty, we are expected, upon threat of violence if we do not comply instantly, without reason or just cause, beyond any semblance of rule of law, to bow down, submit to armed trespass, or be incarcerated for intransigence to this hideous authority without due process, or ultimately shot for failure to comply on the spot, with the very same kind of weapons these same traitors are attempting to deprive us of.

    Just who are the real terrorists in our midst?

    The powers that be are afraid of something. Deep down in their guts.
    These tyrants crooks liars and thieves, lording their ways of corruption, and moral turpitude against us.

    This fear haunts their dreams, a fear that permeates their waking hours, fear that influences every move, it is a fear that compels them, “Forward!” The key thing is they are beginning to panic. It is manifesting itself in the lawless disregard of The Rule of Law that is expanding exponentially by the day through the nature of corruption of these terrified elites lust to retain absolute power.

    I think they are afraid of us having arms because, they are afraid of what we could do to them, for what they are doing to us.

    They should be afraid.
    I hope they are afraid.
    Very afraid.
    They should have to be in dire straights for their lives and liberty, out of fear they should have to seek the same protections the Constitution and bill of rights affords us.
    It is as the great TL Davis put it so succinctly:

    “It is not ours to restore the power of the Constitution. It is ours to show them the wrath of America without the protections the Constitution offers them.”

    “Let them restore it to find refuge from us.”

    And I think too, all this is boils down to two things, naked tyranny in our time, and the birth of restoration of Liberty in the hearts of men, everything else, is a side show to this reality.

  15. rikkitickitavie says:

    While possibly legal, its my opinion that this was an advertisement which they knew would be shown repeatedly on every TV station in America. What were they advertizing? They wanted to show that the citizen has no choice but to submit to their dominance with 10,000 armed troops in a single neighborhood. The visual will make everyone see how futile any resistance they take would be like a bug being stamped out by the jack boot.

    The visual is what it is and I can guarantee that many Americans will think twice about resisting, however…

    Lets think about what we know, we know that 10,000 LEO’s failed at every attempt in apprehending a 19 year old punk. It took a citizen to find this punk.

    We also know that the numbers are in the citizens favor. We now know it takes 10,000 troops to subdue a few peace full neighborhood blocks. So do the math, how many does it take to subdue a few neighborhood blocks that are fighting back? How many for the city? How many for the state? How many for the whole country?

    Citizen, don’t be fooled into giving up your rights. You will have many options when they pull the martial law trigger for real.

    • lineman says:

      That’s why they tried it out in Boston first less chance of people resisting…You always hit a soft target first to get your troops acclimated to violating peoples rights…Then the subjects cheered them on so they feel justified in their action..If they would of hit a hard target first like Cheyenne, Dallas or another city who has the means to defend themselves then the troops might of balked when they had to shoot someone who said no your not searching my house…

  16. PubliusII says:

    Regardless of the legality of the lockdown and house-to-house searches, what strikes me above all is how ineffectual it all was.

    That’s a talking point well worth stressing in discussions with others.

    All that up-armored militarized tacticool stuff did exactly nothing to find the fugitive. Then they lift the lockdown, and 10 minutes later an ordinary citizen checking his property finds the culprit.

    That’s the take-home message and it’s strongly constitutional. (Along with the idea that firearms in the home are a damn good idea.)

  17. Reality check: To put this in perspective, ask yourself what the public reaction and outcry would have been if this “lock down” and illegal, warrantless search activity would have taken place in a predominantly black neighborhood. Look at the pictures. Watch the videos of how law abiding citizens were treated during this incident and ask yourself some questions.

    Fanning the flames of truth — in United States.

  18. What’s really offensive about the LEO behavior is how they KEPT CONDUCTING warrantless searches of people’s homes even AFTER the second bomber was taken into custody, just like the jack-booted thugs they are.

    Oh, wait, that didn’t happen. They caught the bad guy, wrapped things up, and went home to get some much needed sleep, after spending many hours actively trying to close in and put hands on a suspect #2 who they had every reason to believe was wearing a suicide vest as had suspect #1, and would likely detonate everyone around him when caught.

    What a bunch of cowards, eh?

    Geez, I wonder if some of the most prolific of the commenters even KNOW a real life LEO. They aren’t all rubbing their hands together in gleeful anticipation of taking our guns away. The majority of line officers are Second Amendment advocates, and do not believe that increased gun control would have any meaningful impact on crime. The overwhelming majority of LEOs I’ve had the opportunity to meet and know in real life have been just great people. Are there some badge-Napoleons out there? Sure, just like in any reasonably sized business environment.

    I suggest that we can fight vigorously, and successfully, for our Second Amendment rights without having to go screaming around the bend and demonizing everyone who wears a badge.

    • Rob Crawford says:

      So you think ordering a city-wide curfew is appropriate every time an armed suspect runs from the police?

      And, dude, I’m not demonizing the people with the badges. I want to know who suggested the “lock down”, who approved it, and why. I suspect it wasn’t someone with a badge, but someone with an elected office.

      • Who even suggested that there should be a city-wide curfew every time an armed suspect runs from the police? There are neighborhoods in Boston where armed suspects flee the police several times a day, and the city happily stays open.

        If you can’t tell the difference between a simple armed robber fleeing the police on the one hand and a massively traumatic and lethal bombing attack on a major American city on the other, with the bombers responsible still on the loose and presumably able to commit more such bombings, I just don’t imagine how anything I could say would explain it for you.

        And as anyone who has lived in Boston would know, the city is shut down, in whole or in part, on a routine basis due to all kinds of reasons–hurricanes, blizzards, nor’easters, major sporting events–indeed, even the Boston Marathon itself, WITHOUT a bombing, requires the shut down of substantial portions of the city of Boston and involved suburbs.

        A city (or town or state) ALWAYS has the authority to close down all or part of itself if necessary to deal adequately with an imminent threat to public safety, or even if just necessary to maintain civil order–that’s not even a question of Constitutional import. It’s a fundamental aspect of the police powers of any town, city, or state government.

      • Phelps says:

        If you can’t tell the difference between a simple armed robber fleeing the police on the one hand and a massively traumatic and lethal bombing attack on a major American city on the other,

        THAT’S the problem right there. “Traumatic.” It wasn’t “massively lethal” — Chicago has drive-bys with more fatalities several times a year.

        The ENTIRE operation was based on emotion, and that’s the problem from the top to the bottom. The police are supposed to be professionals, not emotional basketcases.

      • Phelps, I’m guessing you don’t live in Boston, right? You don’t routinely take your wife and children walking by that exact spot?

        Why don’t you imagine a spot in YOUR neighborhood where you DO routinely walk with your wife and children, and imagine terrorist bombers exploding a weapon that killed people, including children, tore limbs off many others, and filled scores with shrapnel.

        And the only reason it wasn’t your wife and kids in that spot when that bomb went off is simple, dumb luck.

        Still not traumatic?


    • lineman says:

      I’m going to try and reason with you even though I should have my head examined for trying…How about fighting for all are rights like the 4th that you continue to demonize..You admit that law enforcement is a business not to protect and serve the public like they proclaim to be but then say their great people..How about you look up and get a ratio of how many bad cops are out there compared to the good ones…Its a lot higher than you might realize..To answer your sarc. question about the searches do you really want to depend on the gov that’s stealing your rights every day be making the determination when and for what they can search you and your property for other than what is says in the Constitution…For me I would rather not…You on the other hand might like receiving the crumbs that fall from the masters table…If they were serious about catching this guy and not just a showing of force they would of brought out a tracking dog and trailed him right where he was but that would of defeated their purpose…

      • Please show me where I’ve “demonized” the 4th Amendment.

        If you can’t back up even your second sentence, I’m certainly not going to take the effort to read the rest.

        No, I won’t wait, but I’ll check back in again later for what I’m sure will be an explicit example of just that behavior on my part.

      • lineman says:

        Well let’s see For fellow Constitutionalists, I suggest we keep in mind the context in which the 4th Amendment was enacted–it was in response to routine and truly abusive searches and seizures by the King’s troops without even a pretext of rationale cause other than they wanted to. The 4th Amendment was NOT enacted to prevent the hot pursuit and capture of a terrorist bomber. So your saying being marched out of your home by gunpoint isn’t abusive…Its funny how you put words into other peoples mouth by making assumptions ( Incidentally, the fact that you concede that the searches would have been acceptable had a nuke been involved is also a concession of the fundamental principle that the 4th Amendment is not absolute under all circumstances–at some point, it is permissible to side-step it for matters of imminent public safety.) but when done to you oh how you cry…I say every right is absolute and if the government wouldn’t of caused the problem in the first place they wouldn’t have to offer a solution…You talk about tough guys on the keyboard better look in the mirror because the tough guys didn’t show up to Kings Mountain either..

      • King’s Mountain. As it happens, I’ve been there.

        Have you been to Minuteman Park?

        And all this is relevant exactly how?

    • bubba says:

      Don’t bother helping me out with my liberty sonny. I’ve plenty of brothers and family that I can truly trust.

    • Phelps says:

      Geez, I wonder if some of the most prolific of the commenters even KNOW a real life LEO.

      I know several, both federal and local. That’s why I don’t trust them.

      • Bill says:

        Dead. On. The. Nose.

        If you’re around them when they “let their hair down” it’s terrifying to listen to some things they do as a matter of routine

      • Chuck says:

        Bingo. Same here. They tell me stories of how they abuse the Constitution as a matter of course and they just laugh about it. Most of them are less sanguine and more sheepish about it, but they do it nevertheless. I don’t know what more has to happen before people understand that the police are NOT YOUR FRIENDS. Yeah, there are some really good guys who are cops and some are my friends, but I sure as hell don’t trust them.

  19. Real Deal says:

    So LoSD you advocate pounding on someone’s door, shoving automatic weapons in their face, forcing them from their home, conducting body searchs of said citizens, and searching their homes without a warrant? That is illegal and not justified. You are wrong sir.

    All that was needed was a polite knock on resident’s door, “Everything ok here? Seen anything unsusal? Mind if we check the property and out buildings?”

    Too many LEO’s act like the Lords of the Land and do not treat the people they work for with courtesy or respect. Not all, but far too many.

    • Can please provide a reference for your claim that the police conducted “body searches” of home owners? That, indeed, would not make much sense–it’s unlikely the bomber was hiding inside somebody else’s body. I’ll check back later to see the reference you provide.

      Knocking on the door and settling for asking the respondent if everything is OK is completely inadequate if the suspect is holding the respondent’s family hostage while wearing a suicide vest. What’s the respondent supposed to do, say, sure officer, he’s right in here? Blink his eyes in morse code?

      But, whatever–clearly there’s a group of folks here who just want to be outrageously outraged at the outrageous behavior of the emergency responders to a brutally lethal bombing attack in a major American city. Respondents who managed to keep any innocent persons (other than the initial bomb victims themselves, of course) from being harmed in their efforts to capture these monsters, respondents who successfully captured both suspects within days, and who were willing to (and, in some cases, did) make the ultimate sacrifice in these efforts.

      Incidentally, are ANY of you residents of Watertown, where this went down? Did ANY of you commenting here have REAL skin in the game? Self or family or neighbors at risk?

      It’s easy to be a rough and rugged absolutist when you can rest easy knowing that a crazed bomber isn’t about to storm onto YOUR kids school bus with a suicide vest, or car jack YOUR wife on her way to work, or just blow up any group of YOUR neighbors standing around talking in the spring evening.

      When a suicidal religious extremist being hotly pursued by the police is running around MY neighborhood, I’m going to do everything I can to help law enforcement bring him to ground, and that doesn’t include playing an amateur constitutional lawyer if they have some reasonable grounds to believe a suicide bomber might be hiding in my garage, basement, or home. If my rights have been violated, I’ll have every opportunity to pursue recourse in the courts . . . LATER, AFTER the emergency has passed.

      But that’s just my two cents.

      • lineman says:

        You sir are the reason they quoted If you value safety above liberty you deserve neither..Who do you think knows their property better than the owners..I have no problem with an officer asking me if everything is alright and if I’m OK..But to force there way in I don’t think so…You sir are the reason are rights are being stripped from us because the water just hasn’t been turned up enough for you…Let’s hope you get out before your boiled alive…Judging by your comments here you won’t though…

      • lineman says:

        Your a disciple of Mr. Alinsky you take one thing out of the whole comment and use it against the person instead of the real meaning behind the comment…I’m done talking to you dirt bag…

      • Phelps says:

        Can please provide a reference for your claim that the police conducted “body searches” of home owners?

        The reference is the videos in the original article above.

      • lineman says:

        He doesn’t want facts because they are there in front of him if he did… He is just an agitator which is sad..

      • Lineman: “Dirt bag”

        Well, that one’s always a compelling argument.

        Lineman: “You sir are the reason are rights are being stripped from us . . .”

        Yes, exactly, I’m the reason why “are” rights are being stripped from us . . . long-time Life Member of the NRA, more than 20 years as an NRA instructor teaching American citizens, never accepting a dime in payment, how to safely and accurately shoot firearms in self-defense, co-founder (in a modest way) of IDPA (my IDPA number is two digits) . . . yep, that must be me, I’m the guy stripping away our rights. When Obama and Holder want to know what to do to enslave Americans, they ring my cell phone directly. You hit the nail on the head there, Lineman. Pure genius.

        Lineman: “Your a disciple of Mr. Alinsky . . . ”

        Oh, for God’s sake . . .

        Check, check . . . reality check . . .

  20. Ken says:

    Its it not funny that the federal government thinks it so powerful. Closing down a whole city to look for the suspect and could not do the job. It took the real home land security to find and tip off the feds as to a suspicious individual hiding in a boat in a back yard. We the people are the real Homeland security. Don’t you forget that you dumb ass feds. We have more power than you and have all the control if we chose to take it in a collective. But I will say that you are all sweet little punks for trying.

  21. retfed says:

    The courts have ruled that no right is completely absolute or inviolate, if the public safety is endangered. The First Amendment does not give anyone the right to yell “Fire” in a crowded theater; the Second Amendment does not confer the right to carry a weapon into a correctional institution.
    I’m a retired 30+year Federal agent and I’ve done my share of searches, with and without warrant (under various exceptions, such as the Carroll rule).
    Am I troubled by the warrantless searches that were carried out in Massachusetts? Yes. Do I believe this is a precedent for jackbooted thuggery? No. If I were in charge of the manhunt, would I have done the same thing? Probably.
    Most of the posters here have stated that the police were wrong, but have not said what they themselves would have done if the responsibility to find the bomber was theirs.
    Quite a few of the posters have stated that the exigent circumstances rule was wrongly invoked because the bomber no longer posed a threat to public safety. If that’s the case, then he should have been Mirandized, right?
    I wonder how many of the posters here who are so vehemently defending the Fourth Amendment rights of the residents of Watertown, will defend the Fifth Amendment rights of the suspect.

    • Chuck says:

      Oooh, oooh, I know the answer to that!

      Me. I would. The kid may be a murderer, but he is a citizen and thus his 5th Amendment rights must be respected. It is an outrage that there is even the discussion of NOT Mirandizing him.

      As for what I would have done to find the kid? Well, for starters, I would NOT lock down the city and order citizens from their homes at gunpoint.

      They were on the right track when the FBI released the photos and videos. Now they had millions of eyes looking for the goons and that’s why they ran in the first place and got caught up in the first shoot out. Then they stupidly locked down the city and the kid went to ground. And it took A CITIZEN to find him, OUTSIDE the police perimeter.

      So tell me again why locking down the city was such a brilliant tactic?

      As the saying goes, when the only tool in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

      Try again Mr. Retired Federale.

  22. Poshboy says:

    Law of Self Defense and retfed, thanks for showing up and commenting on this blog page. It is refreshing to read the thoughts, emotions, and deductions of those on the other side of the thin blue line. And thanks for supporting the 2A and its liberty. We are all in this fight together.

  23. Al Reasin says:

    There doesn’t seem to have been a violation of 4th Amendment rights in this sweep for the two terrorists. It seems that people gave permission to search and if that was not the case, I would have thought that the ACLU and the Kennedy clan would have been protesting.

    A more important issue to me is that in the strict gun control state of Massachusetts, the terrorists had firearms; definitely handguns. This evening this was reported here (

    The suspected terrorists accused of bombing the Boston Marathon, killing a police officer and shooting it out with cops in the streets of Watertown did not have licenses for their guns, an official tells the Associated Press:

    Cambridge Police Commissioner Robert Haas tells The Associated Press in an interview Sunday that neither Tamerlan Tsarnaev nor his brother Dzhokhar had permission to carry firearms.

    More than 200 rounds of ammunition were fired during the shootout with cops in the wee-hours of Friday morning after the suspects had reportedly killed Sean Collier, a 26-year-old campus policeman at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge, and carjacked the driver of a Mercedes SUV.

    IMO, this fact needs to be broadcast all over the media. Gun control doesn’t work. From this excellent read,, from a very pro gun, but very left writer, “if you go to a sporting goods store and buy any firearm, you have to get a background check done. If you buy a gun from almost any table at a gun show, you have to have a background check. If you buy a gun across state lines on the internet, it has to go through a licensed FFL dealer who runs a background check. The same goes for Wal-Mart, flea market dealers, and everywhere else.

    The “gun show loophole” you’ve heard so much about simply means that private individuals can sell a gun to each other without asking the federal government for permission. Which is to say that I don’t have to pay $150 (the cost for a check in D.C.) to ask the FBI whether a family member or friend to whom I would like to lend my shotgun for a hunting trip is a convicted felon.”

    Take care and be safe.

    • Real Deal says:


      Did you bother to watch the video? I would say that opening the door to 4 automatic rifles pointed at your face to be a pretty coercive act. Do you think the average person with children is going to stare down those barrels and say “No, you cannot serch my house”?

  24. Kevin J Kehoe says:

    Ratfeed , I have to be Honest I don’t give a damn what the Courts and the rest of you say and think. As great as the Constitution and Bill of Rights are they mean Squat.

    the Declaration gives me all the Authority and Power and duty I need and desire.
    If you Don’t heed it I have the Right to War against you. Is is clear your thinking is impaired not enough Logic. Maybe not your fault but Look and study the Declaration of Independence.
    That is all we need and with GOD’s help we will win back our Liberty.

    You impinge on an Americans Freedom and consistently grant more power and Rights to terrorists, Illegals and their Ilk,
    Every man of the republic has the right and power to destroy you and the govt when you remove their LIBERTY. Yet you continually grant those who do not belong more than those who bled for the US.

    These folks should not have been here and yet you and others justify taking freedom away from us and protecting them both without Proof.

    Hypocrisy dude see it then fix it.

    • bubba says:

      The BoR only codifies our God given, natural rights; no one can vote them away from us. Too many laws now exist that essentially take away from us our inherent rights. Elites from both parties want to be in control of you. Both parties’ use the word freedom to beguile the easily seduced but they are creating an order of their own choosing and not yours. Liberty demands a responsibility from us to both defend our own and have respect for another man’s which may differ from our own. The important factor is to not infringe on each others.

      I will never surrender my Property, Liberty or my Life – Would be Tyrants will have to come and take them from me. I know who they will send to do it, I know who will send them and I know who will vote for them to do it.

      • lineman says:

        Its funny how its pro law enforcement that thinks that the actions of the tyrants were justified…By the way retfed I do think he should of been mirandized it was your buddies that didn’t think he needed to be..

    • Kevin J Kehoe says:
      April 23, 2013 at 5:13 am
      “Ratfeed . . . ‘

      Hey, I get it . . . “Ratfeed”, referring to the poster “retfed”.

      That’s . . . well. . . . seriously?

  25. Real Deal says:

    Also doesn’t anyone find it ironic that “lockdowns” originated in prisions, migrated to our schools, and finally has been implemented on an entire city?

  26. Chief661 says:

    @retfed: what a surprise that you would think this was ok and it was what you would have done under the same circumstances. Here is a great comment from another site that applies here that refers to our military and the so called limitation of the Posse Comitatus Act, “On the other hand, modern totalitarian dictators have used militarized police, rather than the military, to effectively assert dictatorial power, as in both Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union. While we are still a long way from such horrors, the increasingly militarized appearance and firepower of our modern police organizations is disturbing.” You, and others in law enforcement who think like you, ARE THE PROBLEM not the solution. Too many state & local cops and Fed cops like you think that the ends justify the means; what the hell, after all, they got the “bad guy”, right? I especially like the comment of “man-bear-pig”… “Pulling innocent civilians from their homes at gun point? Remind me: who the hell were the terrorists?” Btw LOSD, I did live and work in Boston at one time so I know the neighborhoods for whatever that is worth. I was also a Coast Guardsman (under the D.O.T. not the Dept. of Fatherland Security) who worked in in Port Security; a FF and EMT (volunteer) for over 20 years and worked with my share of LEO’s who think like retfed. We are in a world of crap with these kinds of martial law incidents and with the PD thinking the way retfed and others do. I fear the PD more than the regular criminals and I don’t even want to think about these kinds of thugs knocking on my door, because I don’t want to have to make the choice of living as a serf or dying at the hands of a “Tackleberry” because I wouldn’t open the door and allow them in. Be afraid, be very afraid.