I dunno man, you listen to some of those insane compositions by Nancarrow and a few of them kinna suck you in-It helps to get into the mind of composer a bit, the guy might have been reclusive and maybe a touch autistic and you can maybe perform some interpretive dance (seizure) to his comps but I regard most music as novelty anyhow....

Check this one found recently along the same lines of attack-Impossible for one person to play alone, but I'll betcha two people side-by-side on the same piano could do it...

Pretty typical, if the cops want to search your premises, they will. In this case, it was that wall and gate that caused suspicions. Then "anonymous informant" steppes in to the picture, you got all the ticks checked, go ahead in full swat gear, detain everyone, see if there something that you can justify the action.

The bad thing is, often they are right. Suspicious places often are suspicious. So it gets fed back in the system "this method works, we get only x% of wrongful blaa blaa". They do the same here, busting chili growers for marijuana... Then they try to justify it, play it down or simply threaten to keep quiet. Bad thing here is, if you obtain evidence during wrongful seizure or search, it's still valid. So the act of obtaining evidence is is illegal but evidence is not. This sounds right if the reprimand for breaking the law fro obtaining evidence is treated as a crime but it never is in any western society that i know of. Usually things go to internal investigation that results at most a non-paid leave, a paid leave, a verbal notice and most often, absolutely nothing.

It's "end justify the means" policy and we did our best to get rid of that by inventing all these complicated laws protecting us that are now turned on against us. W can do with uncomplicated laws too, the society would stay lawful, peaceful. The injustice that comes should be enough reason to not go back few centuries.

I'm no lawyer, but I think the citizens in this case didn't properly understand the law. Normally, they are right--the 4th amendment states that the police need a warrant to search a private residence. However, there are several exceptions to that rule including two that are applicable here--the plain view exception and the emergencies exception (see this link).

The plain view exception states that if the police have a clear view of what they believe to be illegal activity, they may enter a private premise without a warrant. And those airsoft guns, which from a distance do indeed look like real firearms, are in plain view from the street.

The emergency exception states that police may search a premises without a warrant if the evidence can be easily destroyed or moved before a warrant can be issued. In this case they had an anonymous tip that illegal activity was taking place at the location? If the citizens were actually selling guns, by the time the cops could secure a search warrant the sellers could have packed up all their stuff and left town.

I think in this case the fact that the guns were on sale in the driveway in plain view coupled with the anonymous tip gives police all the probable cause they need to search the premises without a warrant. I think if these people decided to be assholes and file a lawsuit claiming their civil rights had been violated or something, they'd be up shit creek without a paddle.

While I'm hugely opposed to the war on drugs, I suspect I'd probably have turned the weed in too - if the seizure has been on the news then I'm less likely to have some scary cartel dudes coming after me wanting their stuff back.

Well... maybe keep one brick. Y'know, compensation for my time.

I second @JustSaying here -- what exactly does it tell you? (Snowden seeking refuge in countries with abysmal human rights records)

What it tells me is that it is pretty pathetic that Snowden's best chances for freedom and a life outside of a concrete cell in Gitmo come from someplace like Venezuela, Ecuador, or Russia as compared to his home, the "land of the free" USA. I think it says much more about the current government and political environment in the US than it does about Snowden.

Given my take on it, I think it is laughable to accuse Snowden of hypocrisy. Aim that word at an entity that deserves it -- the country and government that labels itself:

*the "land of the free" (except for those that we lock up in indefinite detention without trial, those guilty of thoughtcrime, anyone trying to travel freely outside of the country or even from state to state, etc.),

*"home of the brave" (except for any vague threat of 'terrorists', in which case we ask everyone to panic and allow a friendly TSA officer to treat you like a sock puppet, in spite of the fact that you're 8 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist),

*originator of the bill of rights (unless the government has some tenuous and self serving reason to revoke any/all of your rights: Free speech? Hah! Free press? Hah! Unreasonable search and seizure? No such thing! Due process? Hah! Speedy and public trial? Hah! By a jury? Hah! Cruel and unusual punishments? Waterboarding and other 'enhanced interrogation techniques' don't count! The government laughs at the bill of rights and pisses on their grave.),

*bastion of democracy (except I don't remember voting on ANY of the shit that Snowden brought to our attention, and it seems that neither do any/most of our elected 'representatives' -Hah!), and

*home of the American dream (as long as your dream doesn't involve freedom from any of the myriad transgressions listed above).

Oh how my once proud nation has fallen.

Perhaps your misplaced malaise would offer more of an effectual response if you could separate the skills and manner of the creature from your pre-conceived notions of how the machine functions. Politics has become spectacle and cult-of-personality and "administrating" government the business of an elite mafiosiesque thugfest.

A "superior" politician, what the hell does that even matter? First and foremost, he's a fucking liar. A seasoned, prolific, professional liar with a hundred leashes around his neck. POTHEAD. Smoked weed all through high-school with the persona of a anarchistic drug pimp.


CHICAGO: Poster-child of corrupt city government from a state up to it's historic ass in graft, collusion with organized crime, and piece of shit law enforcement, not to mention again, the WORST gun laws in the U.S.

If anything I would hope that his administration would finally wake the somnambulant masses up to the idea that the shits' broken to the point of insurrection of a nation, not some fairyland ideal of "Next time, our vote will work for, "Change"....Fuck change, time for seizure of assets public executions!

Well, I'm about to get down voted into oblivion, but I have to state this as bluntly as possible.

This is the most perverted kind of propaganda that can be trotted out by someone, and it sickens me to see it. Glen is absolutely correct in every fact he points out, and is in that respect, doing nothing but telling the truth and educating his audience with things they likely didn't know before, and should have. It would seem that should be an unqualified good thing then, but it's not.

What makes this offensive propagandizing to me is the absolutely deliberate omission of equally true, relevant and significant facts that Glen can't help but be aware of. His sole purpose for the omission is that it suddenly shifts things from black and white into the gray that audiences don't like as much.

I'll start from the most important point, and the very premise of the talk, why do they hate us? There is a bigger question though that is even more illuminating, and it is why to they(jihadist terrorists) hate and kill their fellow Islamic countrymen and neighbours? The fact here is that jihadi terrorists before 9/11 and even more so since, have killed tens and hundreds of times as many middle eastern muslims than they have white western infidels. Glen points out plenty of reasons people can have to be upset with America over it's past actions, which is legit in itself, but NONE of those reasons explain why these jihadists target there own fellow middle eastern muslims for the exact same violence and retribution America faced on 9/11. The fact this makes plain is that the jihadi terrorists will hate not only us, but everyone who is not willing to join them unconditionally. They are not the misunderstood, historically slighted and unjustly maligned people Glen's talk might lead people to think of them as. They(jihadi terrorists) do not deserve our sympathy or apologies, their countrymen and neighbours that are their biggest victims do.

Glen also goes on to list the deaths from sanctions on Iraq as an American crime. Apparently Saddam's horrific(then American approved) war on Iran, his genocide of the Kurds, his extensive use of chemical weapons in both, his complete seizure of Kuwait and his genocide of Iraqi Shiites are not relevant to the discussion of placing sanctions on his country. In Glen's discussion, despite this laundry list of crimes against humanity, Saddam is entirely innocent and not in anyway to blame for the children starving in his country while he continued to build himself new palaces and kept his personal guard and secret police forces well equipped and well fed. How is one to take this seriously?

Finally, Glen omits a terrifically important American crime in East Timor that Bin Laden listed. No, sadly it's not our tacit support for the pro Islamic genocide of the people there in the past, but it was America's support for an end to that genocidal repression and support for a free and independent East Timor. This was listed near the very top of American crimes. When Zarqawi blew up the Canal Hotel in Baghdad, he was very clear that it wasn't for Iraqi children dead at the hands of American sanctions. It was because Sérgio Vieira de Mello(killed in the blast) helped over see the transition to a free East Timor.

I'm afraid I am beyond disappointed by talks like this, I find them offensive and contemptible.

@VoodooV
hmmmm.../taps fingers.
i dont think we are making any progress.
mainly because i dont know if you are directing your commentary towards me or the video itself.

understand i am not trying to impose my opinion on you as sacrosanct.
that is not my intent.
but i also think glossing over these events with generalities that we both are aware of serves nothing for the discussion.

i teach history and governments.

i am also highly distrustful of governments or to be more accurate:power/authority.

so lets change this up a bit.
let me ask you on how YOU perceive the current state of affairs.

1.do you feel,as some other people do,that this data dragnet by the NSA is a fake scandal? that is just hyped partisan politics and the government is only doing what is always has done?
and if so.why?

2.in regards to the estimated 125 million correspondence confiscated,along with the AP reporters emails and phone records.do you feel the US government is justified is mining such information? that the "war on terror" knows no boundaries and the government must be forever vigilant in collecting such information.

3.if you agree that the US government has the right to spy on its citizens then how do you feel about the fourth amendment and how it pertains to "reasonable search and seizure"? would this not be in direct conflict with that amendment and is dealing with its own citizens as 'suspicious"?

4.do you agree with the governments counter-argument that a.what they are doing is legal and b.if your not doing anything wrong then you have nothing to worry about.

i understand you are trying to give a more even-handed and more reasonable perspective concerning this but i truly want to understand how a differing opinion views all this.
my goal is to understand.

because i have been watching this unfold and the more that comes out the more it chills my blood.
historically these things always go in a particular direction and it is not pretty.
power wishes only to retain its power.

This isn't entirely true... intense religious views can been linked to trauma or malfunction of the Temporal Lobe. There might be some anti-seizure meds that can help. I'm not even joking.

I said it that way because it's a stupid paranoid idea that the likes of Glen Beck spout, and I don't want my government giving that lot any ammunition. I thought that was clear. I never backed away from my stance that it was NOT a compliance test, I simply commented that the reported conduct makes that argument hard to make to the conspiracy minded. this is the kind of comprehension problem and mistaken assumption I spoke of.
The "they" I speak of is the police that reportedly violated people's rights. No conspiracy needed for that to happen, 'punishment' is needed to curtail it.
What part was a lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma (that) betrays an authoritarian worldview? I agree, I should have included "unreasonable" (not "reasonable" as you keep writing) with "search and seizure", especially since it's the definition of "unreasonable" that we are discussing. It was not an intentional omission as you imply.

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right.

Says you. You have no idea what they knew or didn’t know. How many people would he have to endanger to declare martial law (which they didn’t)? This idiotic logic you choose to use, that 1 man couldn’t possibly be a risk to ¾ million people, completely ignores that he was, as evidenced by his actions up to that point, a danger to some of those ¾ million people. I can’t believe I’m actually defending the cops, but defending the public is exactly what I believe their jobs should be (as opposed to primarily raising revenue by writing tickets), and until I see evidence to the contrary, it appears they did just that with the knowledge of the situation and the suspects that they had at the time, and until you can show different, the warrantless searches seemed reasonable.

If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.

You don’t have a right to freedom from search and seizure. You have a right to freedom from unreasonable search and seizure. Living in a free country gives you the right to be as ignorant as you wish about the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution, but demonstrating that ignorance in a public forum such as this should be embarrassing.

Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them.

“I have heard some say” is the most common and sleazy way of introducing an idea one has not a lick of evidence for, but wants to wedge into the conversation because it supports, again, a narrative he/she wants to advance. You said it and then only denied you were one who said it. You went on to truss up the notion of “compliance test”, and imply your agreement of it, with “difficult to argue against that idea”, and then revealed your conspiracy nuttery with “so they don't want to (or can't afford) to do this again”. The next paragraph’s lame appeal to patriotism and nationalist dogma betrays an authoritarian worldview. You don’t have a reading comprehension problem. You have a reality comprehension problem.

Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.

Unlike you, I understand what the Fourth Amendment says, but I'm pretty sure I also understand what you and your ilk wish it would say. Again (again), you choose to detach “unreasonable” from “search and seizure”, which, I think, demonstrates that even you realize the invalidity of your blustering, and that your primary purpose here is to advance a narrative.

{snipped lots of ridiculous, ignorant horseshit of personal beliefs about police actions and procedures he has no evidence whatsoever to support; read it above if you need a chuckle; #youtubelawyer}

Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.

I didn’t suggest anything of the sort, although you continue on in your paragraph with the false presumption that I did. I don't even know of anybody who does suggest it. It only seems to exist in your paranoid fantasies. Do you have any point or argument that you didn’t pull out of your ass, or anything that doesn’t rely upon some other bit of info you assumed, presumed, or just fabricated? This isn’t YouTube. You can find support here, but your bullshit will be called, and criticism won’t be muted by the endless scroll of a thousand comments.

If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.

Oy... more authoritarian nuttery. Australia is awesome, btw. Bravest thing their government ever did was pass effective gun control. That we should have such courage…


Edit: Went a leeetle too far

This one suspect was not a threat to the entire Boston area, and did not make what amounts to Martial law without the declaration right. If you think being scared is the best reason to give up your rights to privacy and freedom from search and seizure, you don't understand the USA and perhaps should move to one of those other countries that agree with you, there are many.
Now, we appear to have a comprehension problem...I said I disagree with those claiming this was some conspiracy or even a compliance test. I did not say, and have not heard anyone else say (besides the suspects father) that this was perpetrated by the government, that's a pretty big jump there. The implication is that the police are using the fear violate people's rights thinking they'll be either be justified in their actions or at least get away with them. Sadly they would likely be right, thanks in large part to people like Fletch that don't understand or agree with the freedom from 'search and seizure'.
As to what they might find that would make it 'justified', nothing in my mind, but in theirs could be a different story. They leave it open for the GBs out there to call this a 'deadly ruse' amongst other things, and to claim it was simply a way to enter and search peoples homes for whatever they might find (remember, that's how many departments fund themselves, with seizures, so there's a great reason for them to want to know if there's something to seize).
I'm of the opinion that the Boston police saw an opportunity to enter at least some homes they knew full well were not in danger but that they were 'suspicious' of under the 'public safety' umbrella, and likely brought charges against some for what they found, but that's just a guess based on past behavior, I have no evidence that this happened.
I believe the police should have narrowed the search area to less than one square block once they knew where he was, not randomly search homes for him when they have no idea whatsoever where he is. There's no danger if he's not there, so no excuse to enter. If they don't know, but search anyway, that's an illegal warrantless search. If they pull their guns on you and train them at you (which they seemed to do in the video) they put your life in danger for no reason and should be prosecuted for brandishing.
No one (after the carjack victim not in a home) was held against their will, no one needed saving. When they don't know where the suspect is, they don't know where to search for him, so should not enter any home uninvited. How do you not get that? If they don't know where he is or what he's doing or even if he's armed (which it turns out he was not) then there's no exigent circumstance. Period. They only exist when there is knowledge of the suspects actual presence and evidence the he's either threatening others or evidence, not the worry that he might be.
Again, you appear to suggest that the police may enter your home to search for dangerous criminals at any time they choose in the name of safety because they are dangerous criminals and MAY be in your home, they are certainly in the area. That's just plain dumb and shows lack of forethought and lack of understanding of the right to be free from search and seizure, especially in your own home.
If you want to give up your rights because your a coward, move. I hear Australia is nice.
Apologies for the long post.

As I said, "We're scared" or in other words 'exigent circumstances' are not legitimate reasons for suspension of civil rights. If you believe a 'manhunt' makes it legal for unwarranted search and seizures then I ask you, when is it NOT legal for them to enter your home without a warrant? There is ALWAYS a 'manhunt' in operation, technically every person with a warrant out is a 'manhunt in progress'. Your suggestion leaves no conclusion except you believe we have already given up the right protecting us from unwarranted search and seizure in our own homes. I disagree with that assertion, and suggest that during these types of extreme circumstances are exactly the times when it is imperative to exercise your rights, not capitulate and allow them to simply strip those rights from you or ignore them without consequence.
If they were in pursuit of a suspect and KNEW he was on or had traveled through the property, that's another story, but that's not the case here.
I did not hear that martial law had been implemented...there may be some validity to that argument, I'm less sure about that circumstance.
Still I suggest that rights only exist if they can be used at ALL times, not just when it's convenient for the government to allow them.

For Clarity: "Reasonable suspicion is defined by a set of factual circumstances that would lead a reasonable police officer to believe criminal activity is occurring. This is different from the probable cause (what a reasonable person would believe) required for an arrest, search, and seizure. If the stop and frisk gives rise to probable cause to believe the detainee has committed a crime, then the police officer should have the power to make a formal arrest and conduct a search of the person." If a citizen reports a suspicious person on the street to a police officer, that officer has every right to stop and determine that the individual is not in fact in the process of a criminal activity. The guy in this video was frankly wrong.