Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

quote:

---

...investigation was prompted by searches a family member had made for pressure cooker bombs and backpacks made at his former workplace. The former employer, believing the searches to be suspicious, alerted police..

---

So on the suspicion of a former employer (if that is even true) it is reason enough to search your home? And that you feel is not an unreasonable search?What evidence did the police even have that the husbamd was actually the one searching these items out and not some shitty co-worker or even the employer themselves reaserching the items on the guys computer then turning him in? Plus I'm inclinde to believe that was bullshit the cops said just to justfiy their search.Seems very unreasonable.- Oni

You don't think it is unreasonable for the police to search your home just because an employer claims you were searching specific items online? This isn't about whether or not they did a good job, this is about why they were at the person's house to begin with. The question is was it reasonable to be at the person's house to begin with. The search is unreasonable on that basis.- Oni

The point is they shouldn't have been at that person's house in the first place. That's what was unreasonable about the search. It has nothing to do with how they conducted themselves once at the person's house.Going off of a few items searched on the internet (if in fact this guy actually did that and wasn't set up by a disgruntled coworker or boss) is no reason to search someone's home. Feels like some serious police state shit. How was this related to terrorism? If it's not obvious to you then I guess you're cool with how this all went down.- Oni

"People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both"Go back to bed America, your government is in control...- Oni

Sure you did, you just don't care to realize that what you're saying suggests that very thing. I know that. But it doesn't mean they weren't. It just means you don't see where it happened. The system has that effect.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

By advocating the search of someone's home on the behest of a former employer because you searched a few words on the internet (if that part is even true) you are in fact suggesting that we trade our freedom for temporary security.The fact that you fail to recognize that does not mean it's not happening.- Oni

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

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

No I don't. I think the search was an unreasonable search.Remember the 4th Amendment requires that searches be supported by probable cause. There was no probable cause in this case.The search itself was conducted legally. The search has however an unreasonable search.- Oni

Well just going by the story that you identified as what actually happened way back in the thread.From your post:

quote:

---

The story later took on a different complexion when police finally explained that the investigation was prompted by searches a family member had made for pressure cooker bombs and backpacks made at his former workplace. The former employer, believing the searches to be suspicious, alerted police. Catalano said the family member was her husband.

---

So it was due to a employer police were alerted and that is what eventually prompted the investigation.Do you believe that is probable cause enough to warrent the search of one's home?- Oni

I just went to the first one that you linked, message 42.You said in it:

quote:

---

I don't think it is unreasonable to take the time to investigate reports that could be related to terrorism.

---

And I asked you in message 51:

quote:

---

How was this related to terrorism?

---

Which you never answered.So I'll ask you again, how was this related to terrorism?This is a clear example of giving up your some kind of freedom for temporary security.- Oni

I don't see how that connection can be made from nothing more than a search history of three items.You say we're hysterical, yet we're not the ones who called for 6 "gentlemen" to surround and investigate someone's home on the basis of an internet search. THAT'S a hysterical reaction to an internet search.- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Oh my god!!! Terrorism!!!The very definition of hysteria...- Oni

Another clear sign of hysteria.- Oni