Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

The cops are called about a possible terrorist who is making bombs, and you want one person to head over there?Let's assume there really is a bomb making terrorist in the house. How probable is it that this person is working alone? How probable is it that this person (or persons) is only making bombs and isn't also buying at least one gun? If the person is working alone and doesn't have a gun, how are you supposed to stop them from running away?When checking on a tip (not just randomly stopping by a house to see if maybe there's a terrorist in the closet) the cops have to assume the tip is true. Otherwise, why bother even checking? If they assume there's nothing to it, but there is, someone's going to get hurt.

Again, where have I sugar coated anything.Where have I posted denial-mode shoulder-shrugging?What I have done is try to discuss the example in the OP and refused to wander off into fantasy and imagined scenarios NOT in the example in the OP.

There was no suspicious activity. The activity reported was entirely innocent. Yes someone was worried about a terrorist, but those worries were entirely groundless.I'm sure if the feds wanted to, they could obtain a list of everyone who ordered a pressure cooker over the past few days. Would you consider such a list to be a list of potential terrorists to investigate? What makes a similar report from a random citizen something to investigate?Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Again, if you cannot see how this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable search, then I'm not going to make any attempts to try and convince you otherwise.If you're willing to trade your liberties and rights protected by the Constitution for some temporary security, then fine by me.It really is that simple.- Oni

Boy, you guys sure do make it easy for the government to do what ever the fuck they want. Some guy is accused, by a former employer, of searching 3 items on the internet (if that's even a true story) and already he's a "terrorist" making "bombs".Why even have the 4th Amendment if we're not going to protect it?- Oni

Of course you are not going to try to show how this is a clear violation of the 4th Amendment which prohibits unreasonable search because there was no unreasonable search.It really is that simple.

The cops were called about an employee searching for a pressure cooker on the internet. *sarcastic gasp* You don't determine rights by assuming people are criminals. They shouldn't have rolled up task-force-style. For a minor increase in security, its not worth glossing over what's right.

It seems like I've done that since many here agree. But ok, lets break it down.- Do you believe what you search on the internet is probable cause to search your home?- Do you believe the accusations of am employer about what they claim you searched on the internet is probable cause to search your home?- Do you believe searching for 'Boston Bombing' 'backpacks' or 'pressure cookers' specifically is probable cause to search your home?- Do you believe searching those items specifically on the internet makes one a potential terrorist and is probable cause enough to search your home?- Do you know for a fact that the story checks out about the employer?- Oni

Of course the search is not unreasonable in a Constitutional sense because the police asked for permission. On the other hand showing up to search the house in the first place was ridiculous, making it unreasonable in a completely different sense.

I must first say that not one of your questions is relevant to what happened. Those are irrelevant since that has nothing to do with what happened.None of those were used as a reason to search a house, but I do think that they are sufficient reasons to justify police investigating the report. I have no idea whether or not the story about the employer checks out and also understand it is totally irrelevant. There was an example posted. We are dealing with what is in the reported example only. It is reported in the example we are using.You can make up any shit you want, maybe there was a terrorist cell in the basement with an assembly line making hydrogen bombs, but that is not in the example and so would be irrelevant.

The claim though throughout the thread has been that it was a violation of Amendment 4 and was an unreasonable search.As you say "Of course the search is not unreasonable in a Constitutional sense because the police asked for permission."So it is not an example of infringement of the rights covered by the 4^th. Amendment.

Some people have made that claim, yes. But mostly people have opined on the stupidity rather than the legality of the search. Onifre thinks the search was illegal. I don't believe anyone else has said that. Correct. In my opinion, the search was legal. That still does not make conducting such a search reasonable.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

There can be questions about the wisdom of the incident; you think it unreasonable, I find it very reasonable; but it was not an infringement of anyone's rights.

Your statement does not express all that much. Amadou Diallo's death wasn't an infringement of anyone's rights either.

Its obvious that jar is trolling our asses. He's got 20,000+ posts here, he know's what he's doing: just play dumb and when do they catch you just point out that its not in the OP and therefore "off topic" so no more "need" to respond. Keep it vague and call it "simple". *shrug* What? What did I do? Mmhmm. He's not fooling us all, thus the censorship. It not actually a violation of the 4th because the dude relinquished his rights. But that doesn't make it right. jar will not fold on that one. He won't actually address your point because that'll ruin the disguise. So, none of that matters. Of course it was a ridiculous response. Of course they went over the top. The trolling cannot be maintained if that's admitted, so it ain't gonna happen.
Just stop trying. You can see his cry of irrelevancy... as if you weren't drawn to those responses by his questioning. Again, the censorship is there for a reason.We can see he's not adding anything to the discussion. He's in sugar-coating denial shoulder-shrugging mode. It's best to just leave him be.