GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-19-2013, 08:59   #26
RenoF250
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,326
I think I would tell them I am willing to help them confirm that I am not under duress and the person they are looking for is not here but you cannot search my house. I might even walk them through but no bed flipping etc.
RenoF250 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:04   #27
czsmithGT
Senior Member
 
czsmithGT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 9,388
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Just out of curiosity..

About 600K residents in Boston (not including suburbs).

Assume 4 people per household = about 150K homes.

1/150k = .0000067

This means each house (assuming he is even in a house) has a 0.00067% chance of having said person of interest.

How do you justify that with a 0.00067% of finding something/someone you are looking for is reasonable?

Would you say that the FDA should approve a drug that has a 0.00067% chance of working as indicated?

Would you accept ammunition for your officers that had a 0.00067% function rate?

Lets look at the opposite. You have a 99.99933% chance of the suspect NOT being in a house.

I am trying to see here how you define doing something with a 0.00067% chance of success as "reasonable."

I guess you think playing the lotto is a "reasonable" way to earn an income too?
That is quite a straw man you set up there. Suffice it to say they aren't searching 150,000 houses, they were searching houses in the immediate vicinity of where they last saw the bomber in Watertown.
czsmithGT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:06   #28
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
It seems like most folks would be able to tell - by the look on the homeowners face - if there was an armed terrorist inside the house.

If the homeowner looks calm and collected and tells the officers - everything here is good - that should be good enough - move on to the next house.

Now if the homeowner looks very upset - sweaty - scared - in fear for their life - blinking and making strange faces - but saying - everything here is OK (wink wink wink)

Then maybe they step back and put this house under surveillance.

Just forcing your way in to every home - with or without permission is wrong - if handled this way people should lose their jobs.

Last edited by Z71bill; 04-19-2013 at 09:07..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:08   #29
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,824
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
DanaT, as a practical matter the law enforcement people have few options when faced with the facts as we know them. They had just engaged in a prolonged gunfight (with explosives used against them) with two men whom they believed killed at least one officer that evening and were likely responsible for a major crime (the marathon bombing) only a few days ago.

We can wax philosophically about whether law officers should/should not be allowed to act in this manner. Particularly from the safety of our chairs in front of our computers. However, until someone comes up with a reasonable alternative to conducting house to house searches for the perpetrator of this type of crime, such searches will be conducted.

If I were responsible for the actions of officers under my command, given the same situation, I would order them to conduct house to house searches.
You still have not addressed the 99.9993% chance of being WRONG. You have only addressed fear and speculation.

I dont have one doubt that you would order your officers to do the same.

But if we follow you line of reasoning with a 1/150K chance of finding what you are looking for, lets expand it.

The USA has a 4.7/100000 murder rate. Why not allow this for murder suspect searches? You have a much greater probability of finding one of them at 4.7/100000 than you do with 1/1500000.

These are the same tactics used be despots the world over.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:10   #30
cgjane
Senior Member
 
cgjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
You still have not addressed the 99.9993% chance of being WRONG. You have only addressed fear and speculation.

I dont have one doubt that you would order your officers to do the same.

But if we follow you line of reasoning with a 1/150K chance of finding what you are looking for, lets expand it.

The USA has a 4.7/100000 murder rate. Why not allow this for murder suspect searches? You have a much greater probability of finding one of them at 4.7/100000 than you do with 1/1500000.

These are the same tactics used be despots the world over.
so what are you saying?

dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
__________________
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

Last edited by cgjane; 04-19-2013 at 09:10..
cgjane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:10   #31
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,824
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by czsmithGT View Post
That is quite a straw man you set up there. Suffice it to say they aren't searching 150,000 houses, they were searching houses in the immediate vicinity of where they last saw the bomber in Watertown.
Have you read the news lately? Like this am?

They talk about how this has expanded to Boston and not just Watertown.

And if I have set up such a strawman and lets say they had a 5% chance of catching him, Bayes successful run theorem says that by now they they should have had nearly a 99% success in finding him.

Use a P of 0.05 and n of 70 and see what the probability of success is.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.

Last edited by DanaT; 04-19-2013 at 09:11..
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:13   #32
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,824
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjane View Post
so what are you saying?

dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:13   #33
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 52,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by P99er View Post
.....
Shouldn't that be. . .

"First they came for the Terrorists, but I wasn't a Terrorist, so I didn't ask if I was being detained."????
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:14   #34
cgjane
Senior Member
 
cgjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 539
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
apples to oranges-raised-on-the-moon-to-eat-human-beings-while-we-sleep-by-aliens
__________________
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
cgjane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:17   #35
Dennis in MA
Get off my lawn
 
Dennis in MA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Taunton, MA
Posts: 52,502
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
Nice use of stats to misrepresent your case. LOL

They didn't search ONE house. So your .0000383223% doesn't wash. There is a low probability PER HOUSE. Heck, your math was bad because it's Watertown, not all of Boston.

As Chief has said, there are times even the SC says, "No, you gotta let this go for the common good." This is then.

Shockingly, this would have been FAR more acceptable 150 years ago, when rights were collective and responsibilities individual. It's already been stated they have a specific thing to look for. While I'm usually hyper-anti-government, this is perfectly Constitutionally acceptable.
__________________
The truth is you're the weak. And I'm the tyranny of evil men. But I'm tryin', Ringo. I'm tryin' real hard to be the shepherd.
Dennis in MA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:18   #36
Rabid Rabbit
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 4,124
iven the same situation and not just we're looking for a B&E suspect, I'd escort them through the house so they can get on with finding the really bad guy. I can see where refusal could be interpreted as "the bad guy is here" and I find 200 cops surounding my house while the bad guy gets away.
Rabid Rabbit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:19   #37
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
I am asking how someone can justify doing something as "reasonable" with such low probability of sucess.

Would you let me invest your retirement money with a 0.00067% chance that I would do it correctly?
It does seem like - what is reasonable for a citizen and reasonable for government are two different things.

It's for your own safety that we break down your door - knock you to the floor and search your home.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:22   #38
ChiefWPD
Senior Member
 
ChiefWPD's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Wellfleet MA
Posts: 2,923
DanaT:

"Bayes successful run theorem" is of no interest to the law officers looking for a person who, I suggest, could be described as a homicidal maniac.

Should a person refuse to permit a team of officers to enter their residence it most likely would be due to either; a strongly held belief in their inviolate constitutional rights to be free from such a search, or, due to the fact that the killer is inside the residence and the home resident is facing some sort of threat not to permit law officers to enter.

I see this thread heading downhill rapidly, so I'll simply try to explain that under certain limited situations basic constitutional protections don't apply. Should officers run into a person who disagrees with this, the proper place to parse the matter is before a judge. I would not debate the matter "in the street" with anyone. There is no time and the situation far too volatile.

I am confident that a court would rule that the use of force to gain entry would be acceptable under the circumstances the officers faced.
__________________
Chief WPD

Last edited by ChiefWPD; 04-19-2013 at 09:23..
ChiefWPD is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:23   #39
Phaze5ive
Senior Member
 
Phaze5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Land of Teddy Bears
Posts: 680
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjane View Post
so what are you saying?

dont search because the probability of finding him is nill?
or search for him without violating the rights of the people unless you have really good evidence to suggest that he is where you want to search.

Sent from my phone.
Phaze5ive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:25   #40
Jim85IROC
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vermont
Posts: 340
My answer would be simple.

"I have nothing to hide, I am not harboring this criminal, and I have not seen this criminal. However, I have rights that are protected under the 4th amendment that I expect to remain intact. If you choose to search my home and property, it will be without my consent."
Jim85IROC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:27   #41
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Are they kicking in the doors of homes when no one answers the door?

It seems reasonable that if an armed terrorist is inside you home holding you & your family hostage - that they would just not answer the door.

How can it be justified to force your way into the home of a person that tells you - nothing is wrong here - but not kick in the doors with no answer?


Last edited by Z71bill; 04-19-2013 at 09:29..
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:28   #42
Phaze5ive
Senior Member
 
Phaze5ive's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: The Land of Teddy Bears
Posts: 680
I think I'm more of a passive-aggressive *******.

"You don't have my consent to enter my home." Leaves the door wide open and walks away.
Phaze5ive is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:28   #43
ClydeG19
Senior Member
 
ClydeG19's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Arizona
Posts: 6,953


The urgency of getting this guy in custody overrides privacy rights at this point. This guy was engaging police in a hours long gunfight, using ied's, carjacking bystanders, and potentially has a suicide vest. If he gets to an areas were there is a large group of people, he could still take many people with him.

As has already been stated, the police don't care about your bong or your illegal (in MA) 15 rd magazines. They are focused on finding the suspect.
ClydeG19 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:29   #44
cgjane
Senior Member
 
cgjane's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Miami
Posts: 539
Stats.

Why own a Gun if the chance of using it on a bad guy in your lifetime is minuscule.
__________________
"To a hammer, everything looks like a nail."
cgjane is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:38   #45
RWBlue
CLM Number 120
Mr. CISSP, CISA
 
RWBlue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 27,355
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanaT View Post
Just out of curiosity..

About 600K residents in Boston (not including suburbs).

Assume 4 people per household = about 150K homes.

1/150k = .0000067

This means each house (assuming he is even in a house) has a 0.00067% chance of having said person of interest.

How do you justify that with a 0.00067% of finding something/someone you are looking for is reasonable?

Would you say that the FDA should approve a drug that has a 0.00067% chance of working as indicated?

Would you accept ammunition for your officers that had a 0.00067% function rate?

Lets look at the opposite. You have a 99.99933% chance of the suspect NOT being in a house.

I am trying to see here how you define doing something with a 0.00067% chance of success as "reasonable."

I guess you think playing the lotto is a "reasonable" way to earn an income too?
Hmm, just to play devils advocate....

If they decided to enforce ALL the laws. If we did this across America, I think we would be batting greater than 0.00067%. Just how many illegal immigrants would we catch? How many people have a little marry jane on hand? How many people have show strings and a semi-auto rifle (or as the ATF likes to put it a machine gun)?
__________________
One day, I shall come back. Yes, I shall come back. Until then, there must be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties. Just go forward in all your beliefs and prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine.
RWBlue is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:38   #46
NH Trucker
Needs coffee...
 
NH Trucker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Concord, NH
Posts: 2,176
Given the circumstances, with it being an active manhunt for a terrorist who has already killed people, I'd let them in, and on their way out I'd let them help themselves to my box of Powerbars and bottled water, knowing they're going to have a long night. I have no reason to be a dick to them. It isn't like they're just there to see if there's anything in the house to bust me for.
NH Trucker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:40   #47
OctoberRust
Anti-Federalist
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,642
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgjane View Post
This.

If you have nothing to hide, then whats the problem?

Then what's the problem with gun registration, I mean if you have nothing to hide of course....
OctoberRust is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:43   #48
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,824
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
DanaT:

"Bayes successful run theorem" is of no interest to the law officers looking for a person who, I suggest, could be described as a homicidal maniac.

Should a person refuse to permit a team of officers to enter their residence it most likely would be due to either; a strongly held belief in their inviolate constitutional rights to be free from such a search, or, due to the fact that the killer is inside the residence and the home resident is facing some sort of threat not to permit law officers to enter.
I thought emotion was not supposed to be be part of a good decision. All I see here is emotion.

You cannot argue the math.

Hell, even if we take 2000 houses and not 150K the there is around a 0.05% chance of being right and a 99.95% chance of being wrong. Everyone can say the math does not work.

Prove it without emotion. Show me using facts and not emotion.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:44   #49
DanaT
Pharaoh
 
DanaT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: CO & Baden –Württemberg
Posts: 15,824
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChiefWPD View Post
DShould officers run into a person who disagrees with this, the proper place to parse the matter is before a judge. I would not debate the matter "in the street" with anyone. There is no time and the situation far too volatile.

I am confident that a court would rule that the use of force to gain entry would be acceptable under the circumstances the officers faced.
Again, despots the world over agree that might makes right.
__________________
Quote:
Twice a week? 14 times a month?
Quote:
2x4=8, not 14.
Many of the truths that we cling to depend on our point of view.
DanaT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 09:45   #50
Z71bill
Senior Member
 
Z71bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 10,845
Quote:
Originally Posted by NH Trucker View Post
Given the circumstances, with it being an active manhunt for a terrorist who has already killed people, I'd let them in, and on their way out I'd let them help themselves to my box of Powerbars and bottled water, knowing they're going to have a long night. I have no reason to be a dick to them. It isn't like they're just there to see if there's anything in the house to bust me for.
Not allowing someone to trample your rights is not being a dick.

Telling them - there is no problem inside my home - in a calm - normal manner should be good enough.
Z71bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
arrogance of ignorance, brownshirts, jbterrific, no court needed, statists, the usual suspects
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 1,022
293 Members
729 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42