« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Down

Author Topic: 'Knock Knock"  (Read 1801 times)

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13916
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #75 on: June 16, 2006, 09:13:51 PM »
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.
Logged
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #76 on: June 16, 2006, 09:29:03 PM »
I'm not sure what you're asking. I aim to please, though, so re-word it and I'll be happy to help.
Logged

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13916
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #77 on: June 16, 2006, 10:03:34 PM »
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.
Logged
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #78 on: June 16, 2006, 10:16:31 PM »
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.
Logged

Offline Yeager

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10167
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #79 on: June 16, 2006, 10:52:30 PM »
s'cuse me while I kiss the sky........

Dunno......just came to me after plodding through the wreck this thread has become :cry
Logged
"If someone flips you the bird and you don't know it, does it still count?" - SLIMpkns

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #80 on: June 16, 2006, 11:24:44 PM »
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.
Logged

Offline Maverick

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 13916
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #81 on: June 16, 2006, 11:33:26 PM »
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.
Logged
DEFINITION OF A VETERAN
A Veteran - whether active duty, retired, national guard or reserve - is someone who, at one point in their life, wrote a check made payable to "The United States of America", for an amount of "up to and including my life."
Author Unknown

Offline Mr Big

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #82 on: June 16, 2006, 11:36:05 PM »
Quote
Originally posted by Nash
Incrementalism is a total bore, if you get right down to brass tacks....

 



I agree. Charles Darwin was a bore.
Logged

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #83 on: June 16, 2006, 11:49:35 PM »
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.
Logged

Offline Mr Big

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #84 on: June 16, 2006, 11:52:25 PM »
Quote
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.
Logged

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #85 on: June 16, 2006, 11:53:51 PM »
uh-uh.... okay Nuke.
Logged

Offline Mr Big

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #86 on: June 16, 2006, 11:55:23 PM »
Nash, the big bang theory is just as stupid as saying God created the universe.
Logged

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #87 on: June 16, 2006, 11:56:26 PM »
Maybe, maybe not.....

But the thread you're looking for is thattaway --------------->
Logged

Offline Mr Big

  • Parolee
  • Nickel Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 544
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #88 on: June 16, 2006, 11:57:43 PM »
Well, you brought it up. ;)
Logged

Offline Nash

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 11705
      • http://sbm.boomzoom.org/
'Knock Knock"
« Reply #89 on: June 17, 2006, 12:15:32 AM »
Quote
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.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 [6] 7 8   Go Up
« previous next »