Do you dare to search for pressure cooker now?

I was going to concede that point. However, by that standard, if 6 guys with guns walked onto my yard and surrounded my house I would definitely feel assaulted.

Well, I admit that I left out some words that might eliminate such a conclusion. The apprehension has to be of immediate harm, and the standard is what a 'reasonable man' would conclude. But what is beyond dispute is that an assault does not require any physical contact or harm. Intentional offensive or unwanted contact (even slight contact) is battery.Assault - WikipediaHere is a more complete definition:

quote:

---

At common law, an assault is an intentional act by one person that creates an apprehension in another of an imminent harmful or offensive contact.

​

An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm. It is both a crime and a tort and, therefore, may result in either criminal or civil liability. Generally, the common law definition is the same in criminal and tort law. There is, however, an additional criminal law category of assault consisting of an attempted but unsuccessful battery. The term is often confused with battery, which involves physical contact. The specific meaning of assault varies between countries, but can refer to an act that causes another to apprehend immediate and personal violence, or in the more limited sense of a threat of violence caused by an immediate show of force

---

Yes that is right.I still think that it is valid to question the nature of those 54k assaults when considering what the appropriate police response should be.

So the veracity or accuracy of the report was irrelevant? Your position is that the police should follow up on every report, however stupid? I doubt you can convince many people to agree with you on that. And for good reason. That idea is inane on its face. There was simply no connection with terrorism sufficient to raise any kind of suspicion.You are glossing over the fact that the connection between the reported activity and terrorism was extremely tenuous. Using your reasoning, the police should reasonably have visited the house if they were told about a search for backpacks by someone sufficiently paranoid. After all, the Boston Bombers did use backpacks. Aren't those things defensive only? They don't constitute any threat at all to a non-perp. But not using any shielding does nix the idea that the police needed to be prepared to face a shoot out. They did not make any such preparations.The police reaction was a complete waste of time and resources. Following up reports of searches for pressure cookers is unlikely to uncover terrorist. Accordingly, the search was not reasonable.

Bullshit.The report was not just that someone searched for backpacks but rather backpacks, pressure cookers and the bombing.It is impossible to determine the veracity of any report without doing some investigation. In this case it did turn out to be a waste of time and resources and that's great, fantastic.But some investigation was needed and the police in this case seem to have handled it well. They drove out to the house, talked to the suspect, determined there was no threat and left.Was there and is there anything in the example in the OP I think we should be concerned about? Well, yes. The Weapon of Mass Hysteria called the wife, journalist and reporter of the story. That she would write such dishonest nonsense and that folk accept her story and reacted as it seems they did is really scary.There was no threat made by the police, there was no "Joint Terrorism Task Force", there seems to have been no real search, no real surround the house, pretty much a non event except in the mind of the wife and her Weapon of Mass Hysteria.

Why wouldn't you assume that the citizen was investigating the veracity of some claim?
Why would you grant the state the benefit of the doubt but not the citizen? That is ass backwards and frankly, un-American.What you are doing is accepting the idea that simply having the knowledge to do a thing is equivalent to having the intent to do a thing. So the wife reporting her sense of having been violated is an hysterical reaction but the police investigating this thin line of probability is not? That seems to me like the thinking of a fascist. You are losing sight of the fact that the state exists to protect the rights of it's citizens.

Bullshit. I am assuming no such thing and neither did the police. Again bullshit.The wife lying and making shit up, exaggerating and making a mountain out of a molehill is at best a hysterical reaction but more likely simply deceit and an attempt to profit. The reaction of folk as seen here at EvC in this thread definitely is hysterical.

Jar, you can not say that the guys search history was sufficient justification to search his home and then say that the justification was not based on the guy's search history. If you look closely you will see that those 2 positions are mutually exclusive.Just before you point out that you said no such thing let me explain. Saying that the guy's internet search history is sufficient probability to conduct a search of his home is making the assumption that having the knowledge gained by that internet search history is sufficient probability to search the guy's home.You and the police are equating ability with intent.

Learn to read.You said:

quote:

---

What you are doing is accepting the idea that simply having the knowledge to do a thing is equivalent to having the intent to do a thing.

---

to which I replied Neither I or the police are equating ability with intent. To make that claim is simply ridiculous, absurd.Nor was the search history sufficient to warrant a search.BUT the search history did warrant investigation. And that is what the police did.What you and the rest of the hysteria crowd are doing is blowing the incident totally out of proportion.Edited by jar, : fix quote box

It was deemed sufficient probability to ask if they could search his home. The fact that he let them search without a warrant was an indication of his innocence, so the search was pretty cursory.One way to turn the police into fascists is by refusing to cooperate "on principle" when you don't need to.

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

And that is what we're referring to as giving up a permanent freedom for a temporary security.

You have to fix the quote box some more. What you replied was Now you have gone on to clarify your position by saying If you think that the guy's internet search history was justification even to conduct an investigation then you are equating ability with intent. At the slightest hint of ability no less.His search history might be valid evidence to support an accusation against him had anything actually happened. You know, after a crime has been committed.

If accepting the search is an indication of your innocence is refusing then an indication of your guilt? I don't think that the police should be asking me to do anything that I am not obligated to do.edit; That is just backwards Ringo. We shouldn't have to defend our rights from intrusion by the police. They should be more keenly aware of my rights than I am. I mean isn't that what we have them for?Your statement sounds a lot like 'if you have nothing to hide then why can't we look.'Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.