'Knock Knock"

[lazs2]

well said john.   My point remains... a minor crime or no crime at all is not a good enough reason to be mistaken for a home invader.

It is a lousy reason to put both the citizen and the police in mortal danger.

It should be first and formost recognized that a home is not to be violated unless there is a serious crime involved.

I believe that lessening of standards for police have led to this... fat little women and overweight pasty boy cops are afraid to do their job (knock on the door) and so.... SWAT teams in every town have to be formed...

said SWAT teams need to justify their existence.   This is a bad thing.

We have gone from "one riot, one ranger" to "one wino.... 600 SWAT"

If you are afraid of guns and people and can't handle yourself better than 90% of the populace in a hand to hand fight..

you shouldn't be a friggin cop.

lazs

[Yeager]

Brian Eggleston heard the sherrifs deputies identify themselves, or did he?

Eggleston claimed he was unaware that the people who were breaking into his house were lawmen.  Eggleston worked late nights and wore earplugs as he slept.  Egglesten also smoked and had pot in the house.  
Eggleston also kept a 9mm handgun near him when he slept because the neighborhood was not a good one.

Eggleston had a younger brother who was a sheriffs deputy and who was under internal dept investigation for drug trafficking.  Hence the warrant and the search, regardless of the fact that the young deputy had not lived in the house being searched for over three months.

In any event, Brian Eggleston shot and killed a deputy (John Bananola) and is spending 50 years behind bars.

IMO the guy was justified in defending his home "IF" he did not know the people he was shooting at were sheriffs deputies....the jury did not believe his denial.

I do not believe Eggleston "knew" he was shooting at deputies, I believe he thought he was defending his home against criminal invasion.

Moral of the story?

Unknown

[lazs2]

Again nash... you are missing the point.   It is not the few seconds between "open up police with a warrant" and smashing in the door that counts..

It is the warrant itself and the people it is issued against.

I don't think you would have a problem with the cops breaking into a child molesters home who was known to be armed and have a child in the house...

Ditto for a gang member who was suspected of multiple killings.

Ditto a burgler who uses a weapon or a home invader...

It should not work with a non violent criminal.   A non viloent suspected criminal should be aprehended outside his home and then the warrant satisfied.

lazs

[Nash]

Whatever you say, lazs...

All I know is that you're okay with yesterday's ruling that makes it okay for cops to bust into folk's homes unnanounced.

And you're probably okay with them detaining someone without arresting them.

And you're probably okay with that someone being detained indefinitely without a trial.

And you're probably okay with that person having no contact with his family, let alone a lawyer..... for years, possibly forever.

Yup.... I get it. everything else is just you sittin' there trying to rationalize all of this, while saying that it's me that's somehow the pro big government guy.

Anyways, I gotta go to work now lazs. At a private company. Have a nice day workin' for the government, buddy.

[Phaser11]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLUNDERING POLICE RAID `WRONG' HOUSE; Occupants stripped and searched.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




OOOOOOOOH
I hope they come to my house next!  

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Nash
Whatever you say, lazs...

All I know is that you're okay with yesterday's ruling that makes it okay for cops to bust into folk's homes unnanounced.

And you're probably okay with them detaining someone without arresting them.

And you're probably okay with that someone being detained indefinitely without a trial.

And you're probably okay with that person having no contact with his family, let alone a lawyer..... for years, possibly forever.

Yup.... I get it. everything else is just you sittin' there trying to rationalize all of this, while saying that it's me that's somehow the pro big government guy.

Anyways, I gotta go to work now lazs. At a private company. Have a nice day workin' for the government, buddy.

All of which pales in comparison to the indignity of having to wear a helmet on a motorcycle or seatbelts in a car. Nash, where is your sense of priorities? Jeezus.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Nash
Whatever you say, lazs...

All I know is that you're okay with yesterday's ruling that makes it okay for cops to bust into folk's homes unnanounced.

And you're probably okay with them detaining someone without arresting them.

And you're probably okay with that someone being detained indefinitely without a trial.

And you're probably okay with that person having no contact with his family, let alone a lawyer..... for years, possibly forever.

Yup.... I get it. everything else is just you sittin' there trying to rationalize all of this, while saying that it's me that's somehow the pro big government guy.

Anyways, I gotta go to work now lazs. At a private company. Have a nice day workin' for the government, buddy.

And you are ok with putting words in other people’s mouths and starting a thread with a purposely misleading statement. ( you missed your calling, you should be a lawyer, hell you are already the Johnny Cochrane of this board anyway, you just need to rhyme more to perfect it.  )

All based on you think warrants won't mater as much in the future, and that’s based on something you pulled out of your ass?

And if you really think most of the right wingers you like to pick on (who you are a mirror image off, but amusingly don't get it) would sit back and be happy about it?   Why don't you start a poll on it so you can see just how wrong you are?  

[lukster]

Originally posted by Phaser11
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

BLUNDERING POLICE RAID `WRONG' HOUSE; Occupants stripped and searched.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




OOOOOOOOH
I hope they come to my house next!  

Don't shoot anyone and it might be like winning the lottery.

[Nash]

Originally posted by GtoRA2
All based on you think warrants won't mater as much in the future, and that’s based on something you pulled out of your ass?

Nope - wrong. That's a seperate issue, raised by lazs. My thing was and is bustin' into people's houses unannounced, with or without a warrant.

I'm not sure why you think my title was misleading - is it because it says "knock knock" when in actuality, they don't have to? Mmkay.

Finally, you claim that most right wingers wouldn't be happy about it, yet here they are defending it as usual (it doesn't matter what it is with these guys), while you yourself don't take the time out from your rambling to actually opine on the matter.

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Nash
Nope - wrong. That's a seperate issue, raised by lazs. My thing was and is bustin' into people's houses unannounced, with or without a warrant.

I'm not sure why you think my title was misleading - is it because it says "knock knock" when in actuality, they don't have to? Mmkay.

Finally, you claim that most right wingers wouldn't be happy about it, yet here they are defending it as usual (it doesn't matter what it is with these guys), while you yourself don't take the time out from your rambling to actually opine on the matter.

The post was misleading, and you are still being. Where did the suprmese give the cops the right to come in without a warrant?

The artical I read said nothing about no warrant searches, had it there would be a real uproar. Hell, I think that would be the first step towards armed revolt, its would not be a SMALL step in the wrong direction but a huge one.

As it is the rulling is crap I agree, but it is not the end of the world.

GO back and read what I said, how am I defending it in any way? I am just making sure everyone in the thread knows its not without a warrant since you failed to mention that.

Why do you think I am a right winger? Cause I am pro gun?

[Maverick]

A few things need to be clarified here. I seem to recall more than one story regarding entering by Police and a Supreme Court ruling on two seperate and unrelated cases.


Nash is this the story you are refering to?

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/22/supremecourt/printable1639915.shtml   --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Court: No-Knock OK In Emergencies

WASHINGTON, May 22, 2006


_____________________________ ___________________________

Or is this the story you were refering to?


Here is the other one I recalled from Thursday.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060615/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_police_searches&printer=1;_ylt=AjS09J.xjAYzxoTr8snd9tNAw_IE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE-

Now here it the headline although in reading the actual statement from the court I believe it is misleading.

Top court upholds no-knock police search

By GINA HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jun 15, 7:05 PM ET
 


The Supreme Court made it easier Thursday for police to barge into homes and seize evidence without knocking or waiting, a sign of the court's new conservatism with Samuel Alito on board.

The court, on a 5-4 vote, said judges cannot throw out evidence collected by police who have search warrants but do not properly announce their arrival.
_____________________________ __________________________

Which story is it that prompted your troll here?  They are not the same and one court ruling does not cover both.

[Nash]

Mav - you even have to ask?

I'm referring to yesterday's ruling, when I made this post, which was yesterday.

The other story you quoted isn't even the same thing. I'm at a loss as to how you could come to confuse this.

GtoRA2 - I wasn't even talking to you, so this question, "Why do you think I am a right winger? Cause I am pro gun?" isn't a very good use of my time.

Some of you continue to think I'm being misleading by not getting into the warrant issue, but that's not what the court's decision was addressing, so neither did I. It's irrelevant to me - cops could not bust into your home unannounced. Now they can.

[lukster]

Originally posted by Nash
Mav - you even have to ask?

I'm referring to yesterday's ruling, when I made this post, which was yesterday.

The other story you quoted isn't even the same thing. I'm at a loss as to how you could come to confuse this.

GtoRA2 - I wasn't even talking to you, so this question, "Why do you think I am a right winger? Cause I am pro gun?" isn't a very good use of my time.

Some of you continue to think I'm being misleading by not getting into the warrant issue, but that's not what the court's decision was addressing, so neither did I. It's irrelevant to me - cops could not bust into your home unannounced. Now they can.

You may be reading more into this than is actually there. What I got from this is that the cops did announce themselves but did not wait the required 15 seconds (btw, is this a local requirement?) before entering. The Supreme Court ruled that the case needn't be dismissed because of that fact. The court did not change the requirement to announce or wait, which might be different from county to county, state to state I dunno.

[lukster]

It really amounts to this. Should a criminal get off simply because a cop makes a mistake or perhaps violates the law?

I say no. Go ahead and put the murderer/child rapist/drug dealer/etc... in jail. Then deal with the cop. Reprimand, fire, or imprison him as appropriate. Can we use a little common sense here?

[GtoRA2]

Originally posted by Nash
Mav - you even have to ask?

I'm referring to yesterday's ruling, when I made this post, which was yesterday.

The other story your quoted isn't even the same thing. I'm at a loss as to how you could come to confuse this
GtoRA2 - I wasn't even talking to you, so this question, "Why do you think I am a right winger? Cause I am pro gun?" isn't a very good use of my time.

Some of you continue to think I'm being misleading by not getting into the warrant issue, but that's not what the court's decision was addressing, so neither did I. It's irrelevant to me - cops could not bust into your home unannounced. Now they can.

Maybe you should have posted a link to the story with your little troll. But then everyone would have read it and noticed the warrant part.

I will keep it simple since you keep missing the point.

Can police enter an Americans without a warrant?  

And no this is not a side issue laz brought up. It is an issue you don't want to address cause if you do, you have no point (nothing new). It is the root of the issue.

If they still have to get a warrant then the only chage is going from:

Police we have a warrant and you door gets busted in to.

You door gets busted in and they show you the warrant.


The warrant is the key to how bad the issue is.