SWAT teams violating rights searching from house to house

[Craig's Brother]

These Are the People Whose Houses Are Being Searched in Watertown

http://www.slate.com/blogs/crime/2013/04/19/watertown_manhunt_these_are_the_people_whose_houses_are_...

Social media captures house-to-house searches near Boston (0:47)

http://www.reuters.com/video/2013/04/19/social-media-captures-house-to-house-sea?videoId=242364253&f...

Shock Footage: Warrantless House-To-House Raids In Boston: “Do What We Say!”

http://www.shtfplan.com/headline-news/shock-footage-warrantless-house-to-house-raids-in-boston-do-wh...

The events of the last week were unprecedented in the history of the United States. After Islamic terrorists detonated two improvised explosive devices at a highly populated public venue, Americans bore witness to something they’d never seen before – a complete lock down of an entire American metropolitan area that can only be described as a de facto state of martial law.

[KNAPPer]

I thought your links were a little lame for a discussion over whether or not the authorities have a right to search house to house for a bomber. Can't you find something more directly related to the law or constitutionality and the discussion of rights? I'm not saying yea or nay yet. I just think you need better information to submit an argument, considering your title and the content of what you posted. The question is not simply about warrants considering there are situations where warrants are not required. You are supposed to be a sub-genius, let's hear sub-genius discussion.

I don't feel like devoting a lot of time to researching this, but a quick check found a little better link, but information seems hard to locate at this point in time. I am sure more questions will arise as time passes:

 http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_water...

[Craig's Brother]

---

@KNAPPer wrote:

Can't you find something more directly related to the law or constitutionality and the discussion of rights?

---

In the liberal media? 

---

@KNAPPer wrote:
I don't feel like devoting a lot of time to researching this, but a quick check found a little better link

---

Thanks! 

[KNAPPer]

Anywhere. You're the sub-genius.

[Craig's Brother]

---

@KNAPPer wrote:

Anywhere. You're the sub-genius.

---

Let's see if @KNAPPer knows the meaning of this historical icon. 

[Snooky1953]

You guys are really out to lunch!! Can you tell me why, without a bunch of 3rd grade garbage, this president is blamed for everything that is done by anyone? The police surely have the right to conduct a man hunt for dangerous people without worrying about whether they have a warrant to search. I don't think they even need one in such a case.

[jput]

I bet there was a massive amount of illegal drugs flushed down the toilets when those searches were going door to door.  There's a different angle on Constitutional protects against illegal searches,  libs.    When it is a search using the looking for a murderer reason,  you'll parrot the liberal talking points but if the cops uncover your illegal drug stashes during that same search,  then you demand your "rights".    I just love the hypocrisy.

[KNAPPer]

Well,at least you identified Bob Dobbs'. Good work on that. You are a true sub genius. Guess you couldn't come up with any other argument to back up your insinuation and you are just going to dump it and blame the "liberal media?"

There have been many man hunts in the past, and there will be more in the future. If they had let Tsarnev get away, then you really would have something to crow about, but that didn't happen, did it?

[Snooky1953]

I seriously doubt they were much interested in drugs during this search, but you can speculate on it all you want. Humor does a person goodand I enjoy all the amusing things I find here.

[ollie2655]

he is still blaming gw and really doesnt even know why !!!!