Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Nash on June 15, 2006, 07:53:18 PM
-
"Who's there?"
"Actually Mr. Smith, it's us, the police... Wake up, we're searching your home."
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and (providing the deciding vote) Alito just got done nixing the law that the police have to knock before entering your home.
A simple question:
Is it okay to kill a cop?
When an intruder enters onto your private property in the dead of night, and you excercise your right to blow said intruder away from the corner of a darkened hallway.... what happens when that intruder turns out to be a member of your local law enforcement? My money is on that property owner getting 20 to life.
Question: Where do the government's rights end, and where do yours begin?
This question goes out to the merry few who happily cheerlead the steady march to fascism whilst sneering at the notion of big government.
-
Originally posted by Nash
what happens when that intruder turns out to be a member of your local law enforcement?
You reload and wish you had the forsight to get a semi and a drum magazine.
-
nash, the great crusader for human rights, civil liberty and justice for all disenfranchised americans! Im damned glad nash is here for us.
-
It'll be ruled unconstitutional on the basis of no unreasonable searches or seizures. And if not? Follow what Hangtime said:aok
-
Originally posted by nirvana
It'll be ruled unconstitutional on the basis of no unreasonable searches or seizures.
Hmm.. I wasn't aware that there was a court high enough to overrule the Supreme Court.
-
Originally posted by Nash
"Who's there?"
"Actually Mr. Smith, it's us, the police... Wake up, we're searching your home."
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and (providing the deciding vote) Alito just got done nixing the law that the police have to knock before entering your home.
A simple question:
Is it okay to kill a cop?
When an intruder enters onto your private property in the dead of night, and you excercise your right to blow said intruder away from the corner of a darkened hallway.... what happens when that intruder turns out to be a member of your local law enforcement? My money is on that property owner getting 20 to life.
Question: Where do the government's rights end, and where do yours begin?
This question goes out to the merry few who happily cheerlead the steady march to fascism whilst sneering at the notion of big government.
Why does it matter if the intruder is a cop?
-
Certainly you can defend your home and shoot intruders in the middle of the night, at least in Texas. You can't shoot 'em if you know them to be police though. The cops know the risks.
-
Nash, you good at checkers? How about Chess?
-
-strikes up Deutschland Uber Alles-
http://eri.ca/refer/deutschl.MP3
Alito, Alito above all
Above everything in the world
When, always, for protection and defense
Brothers stand together.
From the Malls to the Home
From the Eckerds to the Bell's (Outlet),
Alito, alito above all
Above all in the world.
:confused:
-
Nash, it's funny to me that the first thought to pop into your head is that maybe a cop will get shot by a homeowner.
Did you even consider the reverse?
Government is GOOD!
-
Less rights... that's good, right?
-
Originally posted by Nash
When an intruder enters onto your private property in the dead of night, and you excercise your right to blow said intruder away from the corner of a darkened hallway.... what happens when that intruder turns out to be a member of your local law enforcement? My money is on that property owner getting 20 to life.
My money is on the property owner gets dead.
shamus
-
Don't they usually yell 'POLICE' & 'WE HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT' or something over and over again when they enter... ?
-
So? This ruling was in response to a justified warrant searching a home, and finding contraband As Expected. Tried to be tossed out because the cops missed 1 Step in the process of announcing, and Had the cop Knocked, at the same time Yelled that the Cops were here and did Everything else right, they Still would have found the contraband.
Too many of these cases are "lost" on a suck arsed technicality bent on avoiding the Real Problem which was the stupid guy got Busted for the right reasons.
Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, said Detroit police acknowledge violating that rule when they called out their presence at a man’s door then went inside three to five seconds later. “Whether that preliminary misstep had occurred or not, the police would have executed the warrant they had obtained, and would have discovered the gun and drugs inside the house,” Scalia wrote.
Instead of feeding cute soundbites out to these guys, why not link the story (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13339498/) and take a look a a broader sweep on the subject than you make it out to be.
Granted, sniping is entertaining, but really does noone any good. Now, you show me Exactly where this ruling will allow an officer to simply Walk into my home simply because he wants to search it? Surely you don't think it's that simple, you always struck me as at least rational.
-
Don't they usually yell 'POLICE' & 'WE HAVE A SEARCH WARRANT' or something over and over again when they enter... ?
Yes, they do, and Still do. They missed the One Step of Knocking, while Yelling POLICE!!!! And the Courts said ok, this is just enough of the BS. And Yes, they Still need a Search Warrant, and Announce. The Courts are lining up to Stop the inane garbage the defense lawyers are using to get criminals out of jail. I'm ok with that. Chances are slim I'll have to worry about them crashing into my home unannounced. One of the many perks one gets to enjoy by Wanting to stay on the civilized side of "civilization".
-
Ah.
-
Originally posted by rpm
Less rights... that's good, right?
So, if the cops knock first, then it's okay to enter your house? lol.
-
So Nash, did leave out the part about the warrant for a reason or did you just not catch that part?
I don't agree with the ruling, but not having to knock if they have a warrant is way not the same as cops being able to walk in anytime.
And you claim libs don't use scare tactics :rofl
-
Warrant or not, if you blow away one or more cops searching your home, legally or not, you will also manage to commit suicide by wrestling one of the officers' handgun from him and shooting yourself in the head, twice, while handcuffed. This will be witnessed by 4 or more officers, who deeply regret not being able to intervene in your tragic suicide.
(http://www.toad.com/gnu/im-still-free-what-about-you.jpg) (http://papersplease.org/)
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
Warrant or not, if you blow away one or more cops searching your home, legally or not, you will also manage to commit suicide by wrestling one of the officers' handgun from him and shooting yourself in the head, twice, while handcuffed. This will be witnessed by 4 or more officers, who deeply regret not being able to intervene in your tragic suicide.
One should always be careful about who they shoot at. Chances are real good that if a bunch of armed men break into your house you're going to get shot if you start shooting at them, cops or not.
-
Cant we just shoot Nash instead?;)
-
Originally posted by lukster
Chances are real good that if a bunch of armed men break into your house you're going to get shot if you start shooting at them, cops or not.
LOL!
I'll be damned if I'll let some armed thug get the advantage by shouting 'police, we have a warrant!' while they break my door in. Every armed home invader uses that ruse.
The authorties want in? They can knock, and wait on the doorstep till I answer the door and present thier credentials when I ask for them and state thier business.
Any unannounced 'attack' on a citizen by the authorities should be met with maximum resistance. Every time.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Any unannounced 'attack' on a citizen by the authorities should be met with maximum resistance. Every time.
How much difference does a 1/4 second warning shout actually make?
-
Originally posted by Nash
"Who's there?"
"Actually Mr. Smith, it's us, the police... Wake up, we're searching your home."
Conservative Supreme Court Justices Scalia, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and (providing the deciding vote) Alito just got done nixing the law that the police have to knock before entering your home.
A simple question:
Is it okay to kill a cop?
When an intruder enters onto your private property in the dead of night, and you excercise your right to blow said intruder away from the corner of a darkened hallway.... what happens when that intruder turns out to be a member of your local law enforcement? My money is on that property owner getting 20 to life.
Question: Where do the government's rights end, and where do yours begin?
This question goes out to the merry few who happily cheerlead the steady march to fascism whilst sneering at the notion of big government.
Let it go, man. Liberal foriegners are not allowed to make valid points for gun-totin' conservatives. ;)
-
just inside my front d00r is a pit filled with spikes & cobras.:O :O
its disguized with a bunch of leaves over it.:noid :noid
some police doods are teh luckyest cops out there cauz i'm a nice guy:furious :t
if i was a criminil they would come in & be pwd zOMG S0 HARD!!!1!!:cool: :noid :cool:
-
butbutbutbut... if you do nothing wrong, the po-lice will never come into your house.....right?
-
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188934,00.html
Elderly Couple Hospitalized After Cops Raid Wrong House
Thursday, March 23, 2006
HORN LAKE, Miss. An unidentified elderly Horn Lake couple were hospitalized Thursday after police burst into their home thinking it housed a methamphetamine laboratory.
http://ln-s.net/Ath
BLUNDERING POLICE RAID `WRONG' HOUSE; Occupants stripped and searched.
http://www.deaftoday.com/v3/archives/2004/09/chief_to_issue.html
September 13, 2004
Chief To Issue Apology After Police Raid Wrong Home
From: NewsChannel5.com, TN - Sep 13, 2004
The Clarksville Police chief says an apology is on the way for Friday night's drug raid at a wrong address.
A couple in their 50's was taken by surprise when the city's tactical SWAT team broke through their front door to serve a search warrant.
The warrant, according to police, contained incorrect information identifying the house.
-
also i w0uld fill th3m full 0f thr0wing stars, cauz i'm a ninja:noid :noid :t :t :furious
-
"The authorties want in? They can knock, and wait on the doorstep till I answer the door and present thier credentials when I ask for them and state thier business."
So when you're having a heart attack and dial 911 for help but collapse, you want the authorities to wait outside until you answer the door for them, right?
J_A_B
-
So Algorithm,
Is it your position that none of this would have happened if there was a requirement for the police to announce themselves?
Wait there was...
So I ask again, how much difference does it make if they say, "Open up Police!" count one - two then break down the door?
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"The authorties want in? They can knock, and wait on the doorstep till I answer the door and present thier credentials when I ask for them and state thier business."
So when you're having a heart attack and dial 911 for help but collapse, you want the authorities to wait outside until you answer the door for them, right?
J_A_B
Um... if you called 911, for all intents and purposes, you've invited the authorities into your house. If you don't answer the door, it's probably not a good idea to start shooting if they let themselves in.
-
AlGorithm--
Your examples illustrate one important point--sometimes the police may make mistakes (they're human too, although the public expects them to be superhuman). If those people had weapons and had they shot back, they'd likely have wound up in jail or dead. However, since they reacted in a more sane manner, they can look foreward to the rest of their lives and the individuals who screwed up will likely be facing appropriate repercussions.
J_A_B
-
Holden McGroin wrote;
So Algorithm,
Is it your position that none of this would have happened if there was a requirement for the police to announce themselves?
Where do you get that? Did I make that claim somewhere?
Look up the word "context". My post was in response to;
Saintaw wrote;
butbutbutbut... if you do nothing wrong, the po-lice will never come into your house.....right?
I then posted links to several cases where police stormed a home where nobody had done anything wrong.
Now, read the definition of "context" again. Without moving your lips this time.
Keep up the good work. Enough bovine excrement can obscure any point.
-
"If you don't answer the door, it's probably not a good idea to start shooting if they let themselves in."
It's not a good idea to start shooting regardless of whether it was a 911 call or a warrant. Either way, it won't end well for the guy doing the shooting.
Any responsible gun owner knows that target identification is highly important; someone who just blindly starts shooting at an unnounced "invader" is an idiot--and a poster child for gun control. Yes, you might shoot a burglar...on the other hand, you might shoot the local police, or your kid who's sneaking in after a long night out.
J_A_B
-
I'm going to go out on a limb, but I'll bet your kid doesn't kick the door in during entry.
-
"I'm going to go out on a limb, but I'll bet your kid doesn't kick the door in during entry."
Smart theives don't, either.
J_A_B
-
Originally posted by AlGorithm
Where do you get that? Did I make that claim somewhere?
Look up the word "context". My post was in response to;
I was asking a question about your post within the thread that is talking about a SC decision. I thought you had a point. sorry.
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
"I'm going to go out on a limb, but I'll bet your kid doesn't kick the door in during entry."
Smart theives don't, either.
J_A_B
Home Invasion Robbery Turns Into Kidnapping
NBC 10.com, PA - 5 hours ago
EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP, Pa. -- A home invasion near the Jersey shore turned into a kidnapping Thursday morning. "She was terrified," Fitzpatrick said. ...
Police search for men in SW home invasion
Journal Inquirer, CT - 10 hours ago
SOUTH WINDSOR - Police are searching for three men who were involved in a home invasion on Ellington Road where a male resident was stabbed. ...
Man Attacked During Home Invasion WFSB
South Windsor Condo Target Of Home Invasion, Stabbing NBC30.com
South Windsor Man Stabbed Hartford Courant
WTNH - all 6 related
TVNZ Further Details Emerge In South Auckland Home Invasion
newswire.co.nz, New Zealand - 2 hours ago
Her alleged attacker forced his way into her Pukekohe home on Tuesday night and she was only able to escape after being driven to an ATM to withdraw money. Vicious Home Invasion Was Premeditated: Police newswire.co.nz Pukekohe home invasion and sexual assault was pre-planned - police Radio New Zealand Vicious home invasion, sexual assault was premeditated Radio New Zealand all 30 related
Another home invasion takes place
Shelbyville Times-Gazette, TN - 16 hours ago
By David Melson. The second robbery in eight days involving a home invasion occurred early Wednesday on Burt Street. David De Jesus ...
Family Terrorized In Home Invasion
Click 2 Houston.com, TX - 18 hours ago
... beaten and that women and children were tied up while the men ransacked the home. Officials said one of the family members walked in on the invasion and was ...
Family tied up during home invasion
abc13.com, TX - 19 hours ago
By Christine Dobbyn. (6/15/06 - KTRK/HOUSTON) - A family in northwest Harris County was tied up an robbed overnight by a group of men who broke into their home. ...
Home invasion robber caught
Baker County Standard, FL - 7 hours ago
A Macclenny couple were the victims of a home invasion robbery last Tuesday afternoon as a young white male suspect entered their home and held Marvin J. Johns ...
Home invasion case rescheduled
Beverly Citizen, United States - 14 hours ago
A Danvers man involved in a Peabody home invasion last month has battled psychiatric disorders, according to his family. Joshua ...
Teen, Man Pistol-Whipped During Home Invasion
ClickonSA.com, TX - 15 hours ago
SAN ANTONIO -- Police are looking for two men on suspicion that they were involved in a home invasion Thursday morning on the West Side. ...
Arrests Made In Violent Home Invasion And Chase
KUTV, UT - Jun 14, 2006
(KUTV) SALT LAKE CITY Three people are in the hospital and three others are in custody after a violent home invasion robbery and police chase. ...
New! Get the latest news on Home invasion with Google Alerts.
-------------
Henh. and that's just todays home invasion news.
Seems that less than 'smart' thieves are a mite thick on the ground in this civilized society we live in, enh?
yah kick in my door, yer asking for a point defense demonstration.
I take my chances in court afterwards.
-
AlGorithm, I appologise, I forgot to use the sarcasm colour!
-
"Seems that less than 'smart' thieves are a mite thick on the ground in this civilized society we live in, enh?
yah kick in my door, yer asking for a point defense demonstration.
I take my chances in court afterwards."
I never said it doesn't happen, just that it isn't too smart--and they weren't, IMO. Several of them were caught even by the time those stories were posted.
If you give the wrong people a "point defense demonstration", your chances in court (should you still be among the living) won't be too good, *and* you'll be giving ammunition to the anti-gun crowd at the same time.
If the police have a warrant or other sufficient cause (such as the aforementioned 911 call), they can enter whether or not you open the door for them. It's silly to demand otherwise. What, you can't search that house for the methlab because the occupants pretend they're not home and won't answer the door? Old Bob's neighbors are worried because they inexplicably haven't seen him in 3 days, but since nobody answers you can't go in and check? No, there are plenty of good reasons to force entry into a residence--as well as some bad reasons that *still* shouldn't end with bloodshed (for example, the errors Algorithm posted).
If you're a gun owner, it's your responsibility to identify your target before you shoot. You might think you prefer to shoot first and "take your chances in court", but that preference might just bite you in the rear someday.
J_A_B
-
Hooray for teh freedum!!!
-
I think we are all missing the root problem here.... the getting the warrant part.
It should be extremely hard to get a warrant unless you allready have the suspect detained.
I would not believe anyone who broke down my door shouting "police we have a warrant" unless....
Unless I was a major criminal. Then it would be believable. If not... they either have the wrong address or they aren't really police. In either case I am gonna head shoot and deal with the negotiator or the real police when they come.
It should be extremely difficult to get a warrant on a law abiding citizen and.... I believe that, for the most part, it is.
A dangerous criminal is something else. That doesn't mean that you suspect the guy living there might have a banned AK or sawed off shotgun or an ounce of coke. Arrest the guy at work or leaving his home and then ask him for the keys and use the warrant then.
Nash makes it sound like the supremes said that cops can simply break down anyones door with no warrant. That is not the case.
We do need a way to make sure that a warrant that may include home invasion is not a frivolous thing tho.
It is the warrant process that needs to be looked at here.
lazs
-
Originally posted by J_A_B
[
If you're a gun owner, it's your responsibility to identify your target before you shoot. You might think you prefer to shoot first and "take your chances in court", but that preference might just bite you in the rear someday.
J_A_B [/B]
if your a cop it is your responsibilty to identify the right house that you are going to break down the door of.
-
My money's bettin' on warrants becoming less relevant, not more.
Either way, lazs is copacetic with the disturbing spectacle of cops marching up to people's front doors, simply kicking them in and entering their houses unannounced.
I'm surprised, and yet..... I'm not.
(http://www.testedcharacter.com/boilingfrogsm.gif)
-
Here's something to think about.
In which do you think both criminal home invasions and midnight raids by the police are more likely to occur:
A nation of gun owners
or
A nation of non gun owners
?
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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. ;)
-
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUNDERING POLICE RAID `WRONG' HOUSE; Occupants stripped and searched.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOOOOOOOH
I hope they come to my house next!
:p
-
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.
-
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 peoples 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 thats 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?
:huh
-
Originally posted by Phaser11
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BLUNDERING POLICE RAID `WRONG' HOUSE; Occupants stripped and searched.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OOOOOOOOH
I hope they come to my house next!
:p
Don't shoot anyone and it might be like winning the lottery. :aok
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
All based on you think warrants won't mater as much in the future, and thats 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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
Its actually a good ruling when you consider it thoughtfully.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/15/scotus.search/index.html
-
Nash,
Both articles weree cited in my reply because you are focused on the "no knock ruling" as termed by the press. In each of those caes there was no knock, both went to the Supreme Court and were heard in the current term. Does that clear it up for you? You also did not specify the particular case in your troll. I tried to clear it up, if that offends you, tough. I wanted to insure I was discussing the pertinant case.
In this case we still do not even have the extract of the ruling so it is difficult to determine the scope of the impact as there is no specific judgement to read. All we have is some discussion by reporters in the article and some, but not complete quotes. Don't rush to judgement on the impact just yet.
Lets look at the case in question.
The error cited by the defendants attorney was one of no knock and less than 15 seconds at the door. There is no finding that there was no announcement of presence and intent to enter by the Police. There also was no disagreement on the presence of a search warrant.
There has been no citing of the definition of a "reasonable time" to wait in this case. Absent that, it's hard to argue what the court has determined is "reasonable". The article lists one statement that the court has ruled in the past that a period of 15 to 20 seconds is required but no case was cited for confirmation or if that ruling was not just specific to the case in which it was made.
What has been cited in this particular case is that the Court allowed evidence in this case to be used for probitive purposes even though the knock and time period were not used. There was definately an announcement however.
Another statement was made that the legislature is certainly able to make a law (as opposed to a court ruling having the effect of law) specifying the procedures to be followed regarding serving a warrant. I think this is a good idea as it may be able to clearly codify the procedure rather than have ambiguous terms like "reasonable period of time".
What has been stated in the article is justification for the lack of a lengthy time period which would allow the defendant time to either dispose of evidence or prepare to use violence in resisting the serving of the warrant. There is no "right" to use force or violence to resist the serving of a warrant.
This is another of those areas that could be ambiguous as circumstances dictate what is reasonable at one time may not be at another. If you have an armed and dangerous suspect engaged in criminal activity involving objects that are easy to dispose of (ie drugs) or are extremely hazardous (explosives, chemicals or drug labs) the reasonableness of a lengthy wait is less easy to see. On the other hand if you are executing a warrant on a to date non violent fraud suspect and looking for records, a longer time is not unreasonable. It's tough to determine one standard that will apply to all situations and may well be impossible.
In any case I did not see anything that indicated there was no longer any requirement to announce prior to or at entry. Just that the time period or that a knock is not the determining factor in exclusion of evidence. Like I said before, wait for the entire ruling to be published before you consider everything has changed.
Nash in answer to your inflamatory question: No it is not legal to shoot a cop serving a warrant.
As has already been mentioned there is a lot of shouting "Police - Search Warant" at the moment of and after entry. Ear plugs do not render a person deaf as anyone who has worn them at a firearms range can attest to. Using that arguement is specious and reaching at best. Shouts are easily heard through them.
It is encumbant on the homeowner to make sure of his / her target before firing in all cases and that does not change in the case of a warrant being served. If you hear shouting "Police - search warrant" firing at those folks will likely end up in receiving heavy return fire from armored and better armed Officers.
Having been on a couple entries as the lead Officer through the door it is rather important to know that every Officer is keenly desious to insure there is NO confusion as to their identity as Officers and there is no shooting or violence if at all possible. Fortunately it is no longer commonly necessary to just get a regular uniformed Officer to enter the door first. Most departments of any size use a swat team with good equipment to make the entry. It is not a fun thing to do.
-
You are so wasting your time Mav, nash will find a way to ignore the facts as usual.
-
It's all OK because law enforcement officers never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge) make (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amadaou_diallo) mistakes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Lee_Anderson) and (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Resources_against_Street_Hoodlums) never (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_Police_Department#Scandals_and_corruption) have (http://www.zippyvideos.com/8911023771013466/countdown-looting-in-walmart/) unlawful (http://www.sfgate.com/useofforce) intentions. (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=990CE5D91230F936A35750C0A963958260)
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
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.
or...your door gets busted in and you grab your trusty revolver beside the bedside and shoot the cop before he manages to show you the warrent...which IS Nash's point.
-
mav... how dare you give the facts in the ruling..
freaking nash went bottle rocket on me and made about a half dozen assumtions on how I think... every one of em wrong.
They were talking about warrant searches. If they got a warrant then there is nothing you can do. They have the right to enter.... waiting 15 seconds was never the law of the land.
My point was that if there is a violent criminal then they need to get in and serve the warrant. My point was that it is the warrant that needs to be addressed not how many seconds one way or the other it takes to break in and serve it.
sandie seems to think that helmet laws are the same as warrant searches... in the one case... with helmets and seatbelts... they are protecting you from yourself... in the case of warrants they are protecting the populace by supposedly aprehending a dangerous criminal who may do more harm or get away by destroying evidense.... I can't believe that you do not see the difference.
I repeat tho... Only violent criminals should have warrants issued against their residence.
I have never been a fan of the ease to which warrants are issued against citizens with no criminal background or even no violent background.
Waco could have been avoided for instance by simply arresting Koresh while he left the house to go to the hardware store.
lazs
-
Yep Laz, and Koresh could simply have just come out and told his folks to stand down.
Mistakes on both sides there and both sides could have and should have done things differently. I agree that simply taking him as he went into town would have been SO much easier, it just would have taken some time. So freaking stupid on both sides.
-
mav... I agree that mistakes were made on both sides but a lot of evidence and Koresh himself all point to the ATF firing at them first when koresh was at the door and unarmed. This may or may not be true... I believe it is.
But.. At this point koresh was a non violent person accused of nothing worse than gun regestration failures.... he had threatened no one and had in fact allowed law enforcement personel on his property and in his house many times.
Getting a whole crapload of black clad ninjas in masks to surround and attack a persons home for no other reason than some paperwork violations is exactly the kind of thing that is wrong with the whole warrant process.
especially when the local sheriff had the run of the place.
My point is that when you call out the ninjas... it better be some real bad hombres that you are going after... some people who have been or are about to be an immediate threat to everyone. Not some citizen with an ounce of coke or a recently banned 30 round mag or some dummy grenade paperweights.
lazs
-
So Nash, what you're saying is, you would like the evidence in the particular search and seizure to be inadmissable in the trial? (yeah, I know the actual seizure happened in 1998 or something)
Oops, sorry cops. You didn't knock. All that incriminating evidence you found isn't allowed into the trial. Sorry DA, looks like you don't have a case now.
Hmm, doesn't sound like a scenario I would like. Also, just because the evidence will still be admissible doesn't mean that the cops will stop knocking altogether in every situation.
However, I do see the other side of it. We give away our freedoms and rights little by little until eventually, we have no freedom and rights.
-
Originally posted by Nifty
So Nash, what you're saying is, you would like the evidence in the particular search and seizure to be inadmissable in the trial? (yeah, I know the actual seizure happened in 1998 or something)
Oops, sorry cops. You didn't knock. All that incriminating evidence you found isn't allowed into the trial. Sorry DA, looks like you don't have a case now.
That's exactly how it should be. There is a distinction between a search without a vaild warrant, and a warranted search badly executed. There have always been situations where evidence is discovered through error. The Supreme Court ruling now invites it, with the understanding now that there are no drawbacks to executing a bad search.
It really is that simple.
-
Originally posted by Nash
That's exactly how it should be. There is a distinction between a search without a vaild warrant, and a warranted search badly executed. There have always been situations where evidence is discovered through error. The Supreme Court ruling now invites it, with the understanding now that there are no drawbacks to executing a bad search.
It really is that simple.
No drawbacks? Of course there are. Discipline the police but don't let the criminal off the hook.
-
Who disciplines the police?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Who disciplines the police?
At what level? Certainly they discipline themselves and when needed are disciplined from outside their ranks.
-
"and when needed are disciplined from outside their ranks"
If by "outside their ranks" you mean by the courts, then cross that one off your list of potential discipliners when it comes to this particular brand of bad search.
So you're left with the police disciplining themselves, with no real motive or imperative to do even that.
-
I don't mean the courts though they may come into it when there has been criminal activity. I'm talking about the mayor or other government official.
Many of the top ranked police offices are elected positions, when appointed there is always an elected offical in charge of that office. That's how it is throughout the US anyhow.
-
Nash you really do resemble this guy. :noid
I was going to try and respond to your last 3 posts but I'll just do it in one.
The checks and ballances were already alluded to in the article,. There is a whole bunch of lawyers that deal in suing the Police. There are also lawyers that do a very creditable job doing civil rights violation actions. Guess who the recipients of those are.
There are also internal investigations that make a court room look absolutely benign. You won't believe it of course as you have never had any experiance with it. The Officer has no right to remain silent. The Officer can and often IS ordered to answer any or all questions regarding the investigation, including those not pertinant to the investigation at hand. In other words, a fishing expedition. Failure to do so is grounds for severe discipline and or termination. Once that happens the agency then also becomes part of the prosecution, should there be one, and internal records can be used against the Officer.
So lets see there is at least 3 levels of court action, criminal prosecution, civil rights violations and civil suits. Oh and double jeopardy doesn't apply to civil rights violations so you can get that after being found not guilty of the criminal action. Yep you're right there's no court involvement over Police actions. :rolleyes:
BTW can you explain this post you made? I am at a loss what the difference is that you were talking about. I do not follow what the distinction is that you are alluding to. You seem to have forgotten to post it.
_____________________________ ___________________
Quote from Nash
That's exactly how it should be. There is a distinction between a search without a vaild warrant, and a warranted search badly executed. There have always been situations where evidence is discovered through error. The Supreme Court ruling now invites it, with the understanding now that there are no drawbacks to executing a bad search.
It really is that simple.
-
I'm not sure what you're asking. I aim to please, though, so re-word it and I'll be happy to help.
-
I'm asking what you were referring to in your own post. That's why I quoted it. Here it is again.
BTW can you explain this post you made? I am at a loss what the difference is that you were talking about. I do not follow what the distinction is that you are alluding to. You seem to have forgotten to post it.
_____________________________ ___________________
Quote from Nash
That's exactly how it should be. There is a distinction between a search without a vaild warrant, and a warranted search badly executed. There have always been situations where evidence is discovered through error. The Supreme Court ruling now invites it, with the understanding now that there are no drawbacks to executing a bad search.
It really is that simple.
Where is the distinction you mentioned? I don't see it in your post.
-
The distinction between cops not having a warrant therefore executing a bad search, and cops having a warrant yet still executing a bad search?
That's the distinction you're wondering about?
Weren't you a cop or something? Haven't you seen both? I'm assuming you understand the difference, which is why I'm thinking that maybe I don't understand your question.
-
s'cuse me while I kiss the sky........
Dunno......just came to me after plodding through the wreck this thread has become :cry
-
Incrementalism is a total bore, if you get right down to brass tacks....
It's only when you're up to your tits in the stuff does it once again become interesting. By then? Too late.
-
Yes Nash I was a cop. I figured you would have noticed that part in my posts. I've seen and done more than a few searches and participated in service of more than one warranted search as well as entry without a warrant to confirm a homicide had been committed.
What I didn't figure out was what you were trying to say in your post I quoted twice now. You mention distinction yet never elucidate on what you mean by it. It leads me to believe that given the contexct of the post you made that statement in and the succeding ones you really don't have a clue about what you were trying to say. I certainly haven't been able to distinguish any clearer meanings out of it in your answer.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Incrementalism is a total bore, if you get right down to brass tacks....
I agree. Charles Darwin was a bore.
-
True. Darwinism could be considered boring stuff also...
At the very least, it's nothing compared to the drama and exciting Hallelujah that is the world popping into existence at the fingertips of an almighty god. 'Cuz that sure as hell aint boring.
Maybe that, like this, turns people off. Next time I post about it, I'll be sure and base my post on an illegal search executed during a thrilling car chase. With the obligatory explosion.
-
Originally posted by Nash
True. Darwinism could be considered boring stuff also...
At the very least, it's nothing compared to the drama and exciting Hallelujah that is the world popping into existence at the fingertips of an almighty god. 'Cuz that sure as hell aint boring.
Funny.
The world "popped" into existence according to the Big Bang Theory also.
-
uh-uh.... okay Nuke.
-
Nash, the big bang theory is just as stupid as saying God created the universe.
-
Maybe, maybe not.....
But the thread you're looking for is thattaway --------------->
-
Well, you brought it up. ;)
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Yes Nash I was a cop. I figured you would have noticed that part in my posts. I've seen and done more than a few searches and participated in service of more than one warranted search as well as entry without a warrant to confirm a homicide had been committed.
What I didn't figure out was what you were trying to say in your post I quoted twice now. You mention distinction yet never elucidate on what you mean by it. It leads me to believe that given the contexct of the post you made that statement in and the succeding ones you really don't have a clue about what you were trying to say. I certainly haven't been able to distinguish any clearer meanings out of it in your answer.
Sorry Mav.... I missed this post.
Rgr on the bonafides. I thought so.
You want me to make a distinction between an illegal warrantless search, and an illegal search with a warrant. Right?
I'm somewhat bewildered that you haven't run into this yourself, but oh well - an example (and they're everywhere).
When asking for a warrant, you must state who you intend to search, and what you intend to find.
So a warrant was issued to search a bartender and the premises for narcotics. The police presented the warrant, and then searched the bartender, the bar, and then every single patron of the bar.
Narcotics were found on one of the patrons, but the Supreme Court (this was '79) tossed it out.
Warrant, and bad search.
-
Originally posted by Nash
When asking for a warrant, you must state who you intend to search, and what you intend to find.
So a warrant was issued to search a bartender and the premises for narcotics. The police presented the warrant, and then searched the bartender, the bar, and then every single patron of the bar.
Narcotics were found on one of the patrons, but the Supreme Court (this was '79) tossed it out.
Warrant, and bad search.
Sounds like everything worked out well.
The warrant was successfull in the scope (search the premises for narcotics). And the SC threw it out
-
Sure it did.
But that was the Supreme Court then.
And we only had to do this little history lesson in order to bring a former law enforcement official up to speed on the distinction between bad warrantless searches, and bad warranted searches.
What are you missing? This post is about the Supreme Court now making what would have been a bad warranted search, suddenly golden.
-
Nope Nash I wanted you to explain the original meaning in what you were referring to in the post I had quoted.
Yep I understand the difference between a good search, bad search and a warrant search (good and bad). Had the warrant been worded properly for the tavern search you mentioned they might, I say might, have made it fly to search all the patrons if they could have expounded reasonable suspicion when obtaining the warant that the tavern, bartender and patrons were routinely involved in dope trafficing either as seller, buyer, facilitator etc. and on but that would still be a stretch and the issuing Judge may just balk at it. Now while conducting the search in accordance with the warrants instructions the Officers could pat down the patrons for possession of weapons as a means of maintaining a safe area during the search and could easily come up with narcotics in that situation. Pat down searches (non intrusive) are a routine operation and would be considered reasonable same for identifying the patrons present at the time of the warrant service. Finding something would be chancey but possible as it happens all the time.
The warrant has to outline in detail the location to be searched and the items being sought. There are details that allow a "reasonable" search for those items. Example, you can't open a shoe box in the closet if you are searching a garage for stolen cars. If you can state that there may be records related to the stolen cars kept in a shoebox then it's all open season on shoe boxes AND places that a shoebox may be kept in the location to be searched. In either case if it isn't explained during the time the warrant is secured it likely will have to be ignored unless you can get an expansion to the warrant. The devil is always in the freaking details.
In any case I don't think you any longer recall the thought you had in mind when you made the post.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sure it did.
But that was the Supreme Court then.
And we only had to do this little history lesson in order to bring a former law enforcement official up to speed on the distinction between bad warrantless searches, and bad warranted searches.
What are you missing? This post is about the Supreme Court now making what would have been a bad warranted search, suddenly golden.
Why is that? Because they don't have to knock now? lol.
That knock is VERY important!
-
Come on....
I have to sit here and cover the basics for y'all.... and because of that you accuse me of losing sight of my post?
I didn't lose sight of my post. You never had it.
If you want to get back on topic, brush up on the Castle Doctrine and the NRA hyped "Stand Your Ground" law passed in Florida, and reconcile the innevitable clash with the latest SC ruling.
And if you're going to accuse me of drifting again, don't bother - do your own homework.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Sure it did.
But that was the Supreme Court then.
And we only had to do this little history lesson in order to bring a former law enforcement official up to speed on the distinction between bad warrantless searches, and bad warranted searches.
What are you missing? This post is about the Supreme Court now making what would have been a bad warranted search, suddenly golden.
Let's hold on a minute here and I want to make this clear.
I think with the training and the experiance I had makes me a bit more familiar with searches than you are. I merely persisted in asking you what YOU meant with the post you made. I didn't ask for a history lesson nor a clarification of what is or is not a valid search. To date you still have not answered the question but it's been a bit of time since you made it and I don't think you really recall what you were trying to say in it. Certainly your "history lesson" didn't explain what YOU were thinking about when you made that post I quoted.
-
See above.
-
Still no answer. I have responded to your posts in far more detail to explain what I was saying and why. You on the other hand merely obfuscate or evade the question.
One last time and I'm merely quoting it for purposses of clarification. Here is the post, in it's entirety that I was asking about.
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Nifty
So Nash, what you're saying is, you would like the evidence in the particular search and seizure to be inadmissable in the trial? (yeah, I know the actual seizure happened in 1998 or something)
Oops, sorry cops. You didn't knock. All that incriminating evidence you found isn't allowed into the trial. Sorry DA, looks like you don't have a case now.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Your reply to Nifty)
That's exactly how it should be. There is a distinction between a search without a vaild warrant, and a warranted search badly executed. There have always been situations where evidence is discovered through error. The Supreme Court ruling now invites it, with the understanding now that there are no drawbacks to executing a bad search.
It really is that simple.
_____________________________ ______
My confusion here is that in the case being discussed there was no indications of a warrantless search nor did Nifty mention one. You brought up this thing with the term distinction and invalid warrant as well as how the search was executed. I asked for clarification for what you were trying to say. That's all. Should have been simple for you to clear up what you meant even though you had an obvious error in the post.
FWIW the normal result of a truly bad search, warrantless or not, is the same, exclusion of the evidence found during the search. No distinction there at all.
In this case the Court chose to rule the search was NOT invalid merely because of a technical situation, that being failure to knock and wait 15 to 20 seconds. There was a warrant and no challenge to the validity of the warrant was mentioned. There was also knowledge that there was an armed suspect in the premisis and no one disputed that there was an announced entrance made.
You chose to interpret this as an open invitation for a "bad search" which is a conlusion not supported by the actual information in the article. There are far more considerations in deteriminimng a good vs a bad search than this one point regarding knocking and time before entering. Further clarification will be had on the scope of this case when the ruling, or at least a GOOD extract of it, is available for anyone to review.
-
Maverick.... are you multitasking again? Too much on the go? What's going on with you?
Your first sentence, from which everything else flows:
"My confusion here is that in the case being discussed there was no indications of a warrantless search nor did Nifty mention one." - Maverick
Who said it was a warrantless search?
Jesious.....
-
Search without a valid warrant is a warrantless search. Should be simple to understand here.
-
Totally understandable.
But, that's not what went down here.... it's not what this post is about, and my patience is just about wearing thin with you.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Totally understandable.
But, that's not what went down here.... it's not what this post is about, and my patience is just about wearing thin with you.
Bingo!! But you brought it up and I just asked for clarification. Now you are losing patience, tisk tisk.
Quite a bit of what you posted about the ruling and the sky is falling tone was not about what the case contained either, just like the troll question of is it OK to shoot a police Officer.
-
You need to go to bed. Or at least pause, stop even, reflect, consider, re-read the thread and attack it anew.
-
Nope I hit all my targets thank you very much. You can't answer so instead issue a thinly veiled ad hominum attack. You are right about one thing. Going to bed is likely to be more constructive than arguing with you.
-
I didn't answer?
I coulda sworn I've answered it twice now!
Okay.... gimme your question again, and I'll answer it for like, the 3rd time.
After that? You're so on your own.
Actually, screw that...
I answered your questions. So employ your back button, your scroll bar, and the mighty weight of your intellect.
Your innability to grasp basic concepts is no longer my concern.
I'm sorry for being so harsh, but thems the brakes.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Hmm.. I wasn't aware that there was a court high enough to overrule the Supreme Court.
There actually is. Though I'm not surprised you haven't heard about it in Canada.
It's the Court of 30-06 .
-
Wow - that explains everything.
Okay this is all very nice. Mr. Johnson will be heading up the remedial class, but we're moving on.
The Castle Doctrine and the NRA hyped "Stand Your Ground" law, versus this latest SC ruling.
Lazs?
Scratch and claw your way out of this one.
-
Wouldn't expect a canadian to fight for what he really believes in.
And no, arguing and whining is not fighting. Nor is legal action.
-
Yeah, 'cuz Canadians never fight for what they believe in.
We were in WWII well before you... uhm, we're fightin' and dying in afghanistan, and our Edmonton Oilers are scrambling for their very lives.
What is wrong with you people tonight?
It's a moon thing..... must be.
-
give it up nash... mav is explaining it to you as it is... you are sensationalizing and talking out your butt.
No example you gave pointed to any loss of freedom for anyone... the bartender warrant didn't specify patrons so was thrown out for instance.
The bad guys in the original post were.... bad guys. the cops had a legal warrant. They found what the warrant said they could look for.
Cops with a warrant to search for a stolen car can't go through your medicine cabinet for instance unless it specifies that they can (looking for keys or lockpicks etc.)
Warrants and the process of getting them needs to be looked at however..
I do not believe that a persons house should be able to be searched except in the case of the most grave crimes.
Oh.. and so far as cops... they also have to submit to lie detector tests with no right to refusal. IA takes away allmost all the cops constitutional rights.
To sumarize... it is the warrant itself that bothers me not how many seconds the cops wait after knocking.... Or... if the knock at all. They need to anounce their presence for obvious reasons and.... Anyone who shoots a cop because they don't believe the person/s breaking into their home is a cop.... they should go free unless it can be positively proven they really did know.
Harsh? nope... if you break into peoples homes you better have a damn good reason and you better be prepared and willing to accept the consequences of all the confussion that you yourself caused.
Again... I don't want cops getting warrants for anything less than a VERY good reason.
lazs
-
Oh.. and the "stand your ground law"
"The Florida law is a self-defense, self-protection law. It has four key components:
It establishes that law-abiding residents and visitors may legally presume the threat of bodily harm or death from anyone who breaks into a residence or occupied vehicle and may use defensive force, including deadly force, against the intruder.
In any other place where a person has a right to be, that person has no duty to retreat if attacked and may meet force with force, including deadly force if he or she reasonably believes it is necessary to do so to prevent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another to prevent the commission of a forcible felony.
In either case, a person using any force permitted by the law is immune from criminal prosecution or civil action and cannot be arrested unless a law enforcement agency determines there is probable cause that the force used was unlawful.
If a civil action is brought and the court finds the defendant to be immune based on the parameters of the law, the defendant will be awarded all costs of defense.
Floridas law, like countless others from legislative sausage grinders, could have been better drafted. It unquestionably will be challenged in court, over and over again, by those who abhor even the concept of applied individual self-defense or by legal gadflies with nothing better to do with their time.
It is a tough law on those with criminal intent. As is often the case, its ultimate goal is as much to deter as to be used. Whether it ever results in much change remains to be seen. But by removing ambiguities regarding legal responses to imminent threats to life and property and removing an obligation to retreat, the law attempts to rebalance justice on behalf of innocent, law-abiding Floridians, as well as the states numerous law-abiding visitors, specifically included. Whether those visitors are comforted or frightened by the law should be based on accurately understanding it, not blatant attempts by a faltering advocacy group to harm Florida tourism"
Again... I don't understand what nash is going on abourt.. The Florida law is a good one. I don't understand how waiting 2 sec or 2 minutes would in any way negate that.
Yelling "police we have a warrant" to someone who does not think they have done anything wrong and has read all about home invaders and is armed.... well... waiting no seconds or 15 seconds isn't gonna matter..
If the person is a violent criminal intent on shooting cops it won't matter either....
Sooo.... can the liberal hystrionics and....Explain to me how 15 seconds is gonna help anyone. How the 15 seconds is the real problem here.
lazs