4th Amendment Officially Eliminated
01-17-2009, 08:15 PM
#41
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
Oh and for those non gun nuts, THE MAGAZINE IS INSTALLED BACKWARDS! It would have been a lot less work to get that mag in the gun if you faced the pointy end of the bullet AWAY FROM YOURSELF.
01-17-2009, 09:45 PM
#42
Senior Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 1,016
Barracaded himself into his house...could just mean the cops waited outside with their guns drawn for 4 hours while he watched two installments of the Lion King series before they decided to knock on the door.
01-17-2009, 09:55 PM
#43
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
Originally Posted by defprun' post='914769' date='Jan 17 2009, 10:45 PM
Barracaded himself into his house...could just mean the cops waited outside with their guns drawn for 4 hours while he watched two installments of the Lion King series before they decided to knock on the door.
He's in there taking a **** when he thinks he hears a knock on the door, cleans himself up and flushes, looks through the peep hole, no one is there. 4 hours later the cops smash the door in and shoot him the middle of watching an old "Osmonds" rerun. Police were quoted saying "it's been our experience that people watching the osmonds are shoplifters and often involved in gun trafficing (they use old osmond episodes to pass encoded messages. So we figured we were well within our rights to take the shot and we did. All in all it was a win, win day shoplifter is off the streets permanently and we all go home in one piece."
Friends say the hard of hearing grandfather of 3 often turned the sound way up when watching the osmonds and usually turned his hearing aids off when going to bed. When infromed about illegal activities that he was involved in his friends and family said they were not aware of any illegal activities the former war veteran was involved in, but said that if the police officers say he was into these activities they have no reason to believe otherwise since they have no reason to lie. They said it is unlikely that they would know more about their friend of 40 years then the police. they also said they were disgusted to hear of his criminal activities and would now take their friend to the glue factory rather then give him a proper funeral.
01-18-2009, 01:16 AM
#44
Fabricator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Ohio (Hebron) Zephyrhills Fla.
Posts: 1,322
Originally Posted by phinsup' post='914751' date='Jan 17 2009, 02:10 PM
I read through your post and cannot see where it states they actually had a valid warrant at the time of the search, because if they did not, which is what I read that is IT, no valid warrant they violated the 4th amendment. The bill of right does not allow "honest mistakes" it's very clear, no warrrant = illegal research.
I've read the constituion to extent that I basically have it memorized, the bill of rights as well I don't recall where it says that any part of the constitution can be ignored in order to put "repeat offenders" or "real bad guys" away? i guess i missed that section? i have been laboring under the impression that the constitution protected all American citizens regardless of prior acts.
See this statement is where I think our difference in opinion really begin. You assume that because they are cops they in no way "conspired" to put this deserving "really bad guy" behind bars. I find it not only possible, but likely if for no other reason then your own belief that it's ok to "do what it takes" to put "really bad guys behind bars" I don't subscribe to that logic and nor does the constitution IMO Once we say it's ok to ignore the constitution for "really bad guys" then all that has to be expanded on is the definition of "really bad guys" now it's a drug dealer and multiple offender, tomorrow it's a guy who drives too fast or who's car gets too low a MPG.
We could really stream line the legal system with more rulings like this. pretty soon we'll just have have the officer sign an affidavit that says he's seen or heard or thinks and or believes that the citizen has done something illegal and has therefor sentanced him to 2 years in jail (of course no trial necessary).
The slow eriosion of our rights is NOT OK WITH ME and you guys may be more then happy about it when it puts a career criminal away, but I am not, when I see his rights violated I wonder when I'll be the bad guy in the news.
Supreme court rulings set precidents, then distrcit judges expand on those precidents. You being former law enforcement are obviously more comfortable with the police departments ever expanding reach and that's fine, I can't fault you for that. I have friends that are cops, doesn't mean I trust their friends. Mark my words, this ruling will be expanded, today the local drug dealer, the neighbor with a fully auto weapon, the friendly guy accross the street smoking a j.
Judges below the Supremes may not "expand" on a ruling. I am not comfortable with anything illegal done by any officer of the law. Police officers are officers of the court, and held to a higher standard than an ordinary citizen. Illegal but true.
Roe vs. Wade was an abortion for a woman who had been raped, it made abortion legal. Do we go into the specifics of that case when establishing future abortion rulings? No, even though the case was for a raped woman it made abortion legal under EVERY set of circumstances and this ruling will too.
I have decided that until I become a pregnant rape victim, I will not comment on Roe Vs Wade.
Man thank god it wasn't me you say to yourself..... and then one day it is.
The constitution is CLEAR, it should not be bent to put even the worst criminal behind bars you bend it to put the bad guy in jail and it's next bent to put you and I in jail.
Let me remind you all the 4th Amendment is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There was no VALID, no matter a confusion from dispatch, etc, etc... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VALID WARRANT, that is the beginning and the end of the story.
I see **** this BART cops first reaction after a fellow officer shoots a man in cold blood is to confiscate all teh cameras in the area and I am ******* scared! Their reaction was NOT to call an ambulance, not help the kid but "Hurry get all the cameras, get the proof" its disgusting.
Are all cops bad? No I am no saying that, I'm not even saying the majority are, but I am saying that the constitution is there to keep them honest or rather WAS there to keep the bad one's honest.
I've read the constituion to extent that I basically have it memorized, the bill of rights as well I don't recall where it says that any part of the constitution can be ignored in order to put "repeat offenders" or "real bad guys" away? i guess i missed that section? i have been laboring under the impression that the constitution protected all American citizens regardless of prior acts.
See this statement is where I think our difference in opinion really begin. You assume that because they are cops they in no way "conspired" to put this deserving "really bad guy" behind bars. I find it not only possible, but likely if for no other reason then your own belief that it's ok to "do what it takes" to put "really bad guys behind bars" I don't subscribe to that logic and nor does the constitution IMO Once we say it's ok to ignore the constitution for "really bad guys" then all that has to be expanded on is the definition of "really bad guys" now it's a drug dealer and multiple offender, tomorrow it's a guy who drives too fast or who's car gets too low a MPG.
We could really stream line the legal system with more rulings like this. pretty soon we'll just have have the officer sign an affidavit that says he's seen or heard or thinks and or believes that the citizen has done something illegal and has therefor sentanced him to 2 years in jail (of course no trial necessary).
The slow eriosion of our rights is NOT OK WITH ME and you guys may be more then happy about it when it puts a career criminal away, but I am not, when I see his rights violated I wonder when I'll be the bad guy in the news.
Supreme court rulings set precidents, then distrcit judges expand on those precidents. You being former law enforcement are obviously more comfortable with the police departments ever expanding reach and that's fine, I can't fault you for that. I have friends that are cops, doesn't mean I trust their friends. Mark my words, this ruling will be expanded, today the local drug dealer, the neighbor with a fully auto weapon, the friendly guy accross the street smoking a j.
Judges below the Supremes may not "expand" on a ruling. I am not comfortable with anything illegal done by any officer of the law. Police officers are officers of the court, and held to a higher standard than an ordinary citizen. Illegal but true.
Roe vs. Wade was an abortion for a woman who had been raped, it made abortion legal. Do we go into the specifics of that case when establishing future abortion rulings? No, even though the case was for a raped woman it made abortion legal under EVERY set of circumstances and this ruling will too.
I have decided that until I become a pregnant rape victim, I will not comment on Roe Vs Wade.
Man thank god it wasn't me you say to yourself..... and then one day it is.
The constitution is CLEAR, it should not be bent to put even the worst criminal behind bars you bend it to put the bad guy in jail and it's next bent to put you and I in jail.
Let me remind you all the 4th Amendment is:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
There was no VALID, no matter a confusion from dispatch, etc, etc... the fact remains THERE WAS NO VALID WARRANT, that is the beginning and the end of the story.
I see **** this BART cops first reaction after a fellow officer shoots a man in cold blood is to confiscate all teh cameras in the area and I am ******* scared! Their reaction was NOT to call an ambulance, not help the kid but "Hurry get all the cameras, get the proof" its disgusting.
Are all cops bad? No I am no saying that, I'm not even saying the majority are, but I am saying that the constitution is there to keep them honest or rather WAS there to keep the bad one's honest.
I do not agree with the Supreme court.
No matter how far downstream it is discovered that the warrant was faulty, the fruits of an arrest made on the faulty warrant must be set asside.
Because the arrest allowed the search.............
However, the police officers acted in good faith when they made the arrest on the probable cause provided by the warrant. Since there was no way at the time of the arrest for anyone in this chain to suspect that the warrant was faulty, the chain is without fault.
Let us ay in another case the warrant was for fail to appear on a speeding charge filed on Bob Outstanding the local boy scout leader. And further that, Bob had actually posted bond within the allowed time and had requested a jury trial, and that this important piece of data was accidentally misplaced and the warrant was issued. Not recalled, issued in error.
And let us say that Bob owns a new Dodge Charger, blue with white racing stripes identical to the Dodge charger owned by the local dope dealer who is known to speed through school zones as fast as a Dodge charger could possibly go. And on the occaision of the citation a blue Dodge charger had gone left of center, at very high speed, forcing officer Fuz off the roadway, and officer Fuz then gave chase but lost sight of said charger during the chase, and then later, found Bob entering his charger in front of the church where he teaches Sunday school. And at that time ussued a citation to Bob for speed and fleeing.
Two months later officer Fuz notices Bob siting in his Charger in front of the church and runs a wanted check on Bob. Yes, there is a warrant for fail to appear. officer Fuz notices child **** in plain sight on the rear seat of the Charger, during the arrest (for fail to appear). The child ****, featuring children from the Sunday school as 8X10 glossy prints on the back seat in plain view. An "On View" arrest for child **** (felony) is affected, and it is discovered that Bob really likes to rape young boys, and when it is found by the public that Bob is in the clink, 200 boys come forward and file rape charges.
When officer Fuz lost sight of the blue Charger, his chain of evidence was broken. His affidavit signed in front of his Seargent was faulty, and any warrant that might grow from this affidavit will be faulty. If there was but one blue Charger in this one horse town, it might be reasonable to the ordinary person that finding Bob in a blue Charger could produce a good affidavit. However this one horse town has 7 blue Dodge Chargers registered. A fact in common knowledge in this town.
It is not a question of Fuz being bright enough to realize that he cannot do this. Even after 650 hours of classroom training, and a state supervised test, passed by one point above failing, it was long known that Fuz was not the sharpest knife in the drawer. The Seargent knows this and it is normal to question Fuz at length about his one citation per month.
So, with news of a faulty warrant in hand, Fuz sees the contriban in plain sight, and makes an "on view" arrest.
The question is now, since no search was performed in regard to the faulty warrant, was the on view arrest legal. Or does the faulty warrant poision the "on view" arrest and the fruits of the arrest?
The rule is that neither your eyes nor a policemans eyes can commit a tresspass. If you can see it and he can see it, whatever is seen is fair game for use as evidence.
Trust nobody. Question everything.
Lynn E. Hanover
01-18-2009, 08:07 AM
#45
Fabricator
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Central Ohio (Hebron) Zephyrhills Fla.
Posts: 1,322
Originally Posted by TYSON' post='914763' date='Jan 17 2009, 03:45 PM
My point was that a Republican government seized peoples legally owned guns, contrary to the long windy post above ours.
That area has been in Democrat hands period.
One would think that with this vast history of great democrat leadership that this should have been the textbook study of how to manage such a disaster.
The govenor won't sign the piece of paper allowing federal help for 2 days????
The coastgard and private owners (oil companies) helicopters pluck 30,000 + folks from rooftops, starting from when the wind is low enough to do it without killing them.
The mayor flees to Texas with his family for weeks and then gets reelected???? It is difficult to measure how stupid these people can be................
A democrat congressman comandeers a rescue boat and crew to rescue $95,000 in bribe money from his freezer???
The democrat controlled press says that dozens have been raped and murdered in the superdome, and that babies have starved to death.
1,700 school busses die in the flood, that could have been used to evacuate folks because the disaster plan (if there ever was one) does not include school busses that were to have been lost anyway?
It turns out later, that one person out of the thousands in the superdome died of a heart attack. No babies starved. Nobody was raped. Nobody was murdered. The toilets didn't work because there was no water pressure. It was not part of the white mans plot to do great harm to black people..........
The president flew over the site but did not land and suck up assets that were in better use in rescue operations.
People complain about the free FEMA supplied trailers that are so small. Fine with me. Get out of the trailer, get back on your roof and see how that works out for you.
And which of these above did we hear about constantly for months and months and now years after the fact?
The president is a bastard that hates black people. He should have come here and helped. And not just fly over.
The president ordered the levies blown up so the black folks would run away and the white folks could buy up all of the great land for cheap.
People actually had the ***** to print **** like that knowing there are people dumb enough to believe it.
If you live in a house that is 13 feet below sea level, you have to have a plan to not be there when the hurricane comes. If you stay in the house, have a door in the roof so you can get on the roof when the flood comes. If you think the wind was loud in your living room, just wait until you get on the roof in a 100 MPH wind. This is a big help in the cleanup because we will quickly run out of folks who will climb into the attic spaces and wrestle your giant fat *** bloated body into a bag weeks after the fact.
Are not Coast Guard helicopters Federal government owned? Were those white folks for the most part in those boats and helicopters that came to your rescue? Were those white folks who sent in billions in funds and more billions in clothes and food and building supplies? Not even counting the billions the feds sent in????
Don't get me started.
Life is hard. Its a lot harder if you're stupid.
Lynn E. Hanover
01-18-2009, 12:07 PM
#47
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
In fact I would be willing to say that as of late many arms of the gov't including, but not limited to the supreme court are in violation of the Ninth Amendment. The supreme court has been expanding their powers at a ridiculous pace, their rulings are more specific and beyond the scope of their job description.
“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”
The ninth amendment IMO means you cannot expand gov't powers at the expense of ANY of the other rights. This IMO puts EVERYONE who voted for the Patriot Act in direct violation of the 9th, thats just one reason to throw the whole pack of thieves out of office. The slippery slope has been tilted, prepare to "slide" down it quickly.
“ The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people. ”
The ninth amendment IMO means you cannot expand gov't powers at the expense of ANY of the other rights. This IMO puts EVERYONE who voted for the Patriot Act in direct violation of the 9th, thats just one reason to throw the whole pack of thieves out of office. The slippery slope has been tilted, prepare to "slide" down it quickly.
01-26-2009, 03:34 PM
#49
Administrator
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Stuart, FL
Posts: 24,416
US Supreme Court says passenger can be frisked
6 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.
The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.
The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
6 hours ago
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court ruled Monday that police officers have leeway to frisk a passenger in a car stopped for a traffic violation even if nothing indicates the passenger has committed a crime or is about to do so.
The court on Monday unanimously overruled an Arizona appeals court that threw out evidence found during such an encounter.
The case involved a 2002 pat-down search of an Eloy, Ariz., man by an Oro Valley police officer, who found a gun and marijuana.
The justices accepted Arizona's argument that traffic stops are inherently dangerous for police and that pat-downs are permissible when an officer has a reasonable suspicion that the passenger may be armed and dangerous.
The pat-down is allowed if the police "harbor reasonable suspicion that a person subjected to the frisk is armed, and therefore dangerous to the safety of the police and public," Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)