Author Topic: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!  (Read 15517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2013, 07:34:04 AM »
And the case would have been thrown out as the Supreme Court has already ruled that police have no duty to protect.

You're wrong.

Quote
I don't "think" it's a violation; I KNOW it's a violation.


You WISH it was a violation...therefore you think it is.

Quote
Problem with "exigent" is it is very subjective. Who gets to decide what is exigent and what constitutional rights can be trampled on? The cops? Without due process? And how is that not a violation of the 4th Amendment?

I guess you missed the court case I cited tht were this to go to court would be cited as Justification.  Since you missed it the first time I'll post and link to it again.



U.S. v. SMITH
797 F.2d 836 (1986)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 16, 1986.




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


 

 
The Warrantless Search and Seizure

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=19861633797F2d836_11490.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7


Quote
Wow, call us Alex Jones. Next you'll be telling us we're against ALL forms of government because we want it limited. That's exactly what you're doing, going from one extreme to the other. If one damn moron can lock down a city, give permission to cops to drag people out of their homes without warning or warrants at gunpoint, the Damn terrorists have already won.



Wow I seem to have struck a nerve.  And there's not one thing in my years of posting here or at ToS that would indicate what I bolded.

No I didn't say that.  Your words not mine.  I merely pointed out where you're letting hysterics trum common sense and reality.


Quote
Ok. Feel free to show me what I failed to read:


Already did.  Not that it will make much difference.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #26 on: April 24, 2013, 07:39:52 AM »
I'll put my understanding of the 4th Amendment up against yours any day of the week, my friend. And if you're going to claim "exigent circumstances", make sure you know what it really means before you use it to excuse improper police actions. A general "public safety concern" (to use your words), alone, does not constitute exigent circumstances- that would be a police state.

Ok show the case law that proves what I posted is wrong.  I showed where they according to the court and the law they had the right to do what they did.  Linked to it too.

Look at the definition of exigent circumstances in the case I cited as applied to what happened in Boston...then show me where I'm wrong. 

Quote
Hot pursuit and plain view are the most common exigent circumstances. "Hot pursuit" means actually following a suspect onto private property, not arbitrarily setting a perimeter and searching everything within that perimeter. "Plain view" means observing through reasonable means, a violation of law, an immediate and unavoidable threat to public safety, or the presence of an identified suspect, from a place where the observing officer is lawfully engaged.

And yet in what I posted I clearly showed where imminent danger of either the police or civilians clearly falls within the scope of exigent circumstances.

Not sure what leagal case or interpretation of the 4th Amendment you're using.  But I'm looking at cases of black letter law.

Quote
Exigent circumstances must create the most limited infringement of a citizen's constitutional or civil rights. Absent exigent circumstances, law enforcement must ask permission to enter a residence, or get a warrant

Link?

Quote
Pointing a weapon at a person legitimately places him in fear of losing his life, and is a felony if done by a private person (absent an immediate threat). Law enforcement pointing weapons at a person who is not suspected of violating the law, or who does not present an articulable threat to an officer or civilian, is a violation of that person's 4th Amendment right. "Officer safety" alone does not constitute an exception to the 4th Amendment, otherwise police could point their weapons at citizens "for the officer's safety" at all times, with impunity.

And yet in the case I cited and the definition of Exigent Circimstances here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution which when you look in the footnotes brings you to the case here: http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=19861633797F2d836_11490.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7 shows you're wrong in your interpretation of exigent corcumstances.

Quote
Ordering a person (who is not a suspect) from his own home at gunpoint, and walking that person out of his own home at gunpoint with his hands on his head (as shown in a photo on this thread), are violations of the 4th Amendment.

And there's case law to back this up where? 

Quote
The citizen's remedy for these violations are criminal or civil action under 18 USC 242, Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law. FBI.gov explanation of the statute.

I'll stick with decided case law.  You guys stick with Alex Jones.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #27 on: April 24, 2013, 07:46:27 AM »
You're wrong.

Really? I'm wrong? The cops do have a duty to protect? Hmm, ok. Take your pick:

7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
    On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

(1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

(2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

(3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

(4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

(5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

(6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981). "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

(7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her." Riss v. New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579,293 N.Y.S.2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 806 (1958).

(8) "Law enforcement agencies and personnel have no duty to protect individuals from the criminal acts of others; instead their duty is to preserve the peace and arrest law breakers for the protection of the general public." Lynch v. N.C. Dept. of Justice, 376 S.E. 2nd 247 (N.C. App. 1989)
 
Quote
You WISH it was a violation...therefore you think it is.

Put the projector down, TRG. It is you that "thinks" it's not a violation.

Quote
I guess you missed the court case I cited tht were this to go to court would be cited as Justification.  Since you missed it the first time I'll post and link to it again.


U.S. v. SMITH
797 F.2d 836 (1986)
United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
July 16, 1986.

Care to explain how that has anything to do with what happened? Smith was suspected of trafficking narcotics. What were these people suspected of doing?

Quote
The Warrantless Search and Seizure

http://www.leagle.com/xmlResult.aspx?page=3&xmldoc=19861633797F2d836_11490.xml&docbase=CSLWAR2-1986-2006&SizeDisp=7

Again, what were these people suspected of doing? Being terrorists? Anything to back it up? Is there a paper trail? Are there voice recordings? 

Quote
Wow I seem to have struck a nerve.  And there's not one thing in my years of posting here or at ToS that would indicate what I bolded.

No I didn't say that.  Your words not mine.  I merely pointed out where you're letting hysterics trum common sense and reality.


No, I gathered that from you comparing us to Alex Jones because we don't believe cops should be able to go door to door, guns drawn, forcing people out of their homes with their hands over their heads with no justification whatsoever. "There might be a terrorist in Watertown" is not justification to violate the Constitution because "there might be a terrorist" in any number of towns. Slippery slope you seem to be going down, TRG.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #28 on: April 24, 2013, 07:48:27 AM »
I'll stick with decided case law.  You guys stick with Alex Jones.

Is that necessary? Ok, two can play. If Obama orders our military to turn their arms on the civilian populace, I guess I know where you'll stand. Afterall, it'll be in the name of "safety" and, of course, will be "interpreted" that way by your chain of command.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline JohnnyReb

  • In Memoriam
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 32063
  • Reputation: +1997/-134
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #29 on: April 24, 2013, 07:58:56 AM »
Could a judge issue a single search warrant that would cover an entire neighborhood?

Just asking.
“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened.” - Norman Thomas, U.S. Socialist Party presidential candidate 1940, 1944 and 1948

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."  Stalin

Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15581
  • Reputation: +1954/-213
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #30 on: April 24, 2013, 08:00:19 AM »
Ok lets play out this scenario.  

9/11.

Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood.

Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out".

Would you still be yelling this silly "4th Amendment violation" crap?

I'll play out your scenario.

The government receives a report that four airliners have been hijacked, and the hijackers plan to (meaning "maybe") crash them somewhere in the cities of New York and Washington DC, within the next X hours. For the purposes of your scenario, the suburbs don't count.

In response to this threat, the police in both cities enter the homes and businesses of the residents without consent or warrant, and order (meaning force) the people into the streets, at gunpoint.  They have violated the constitutional rights of those citizens.

But, they have bigger problems, because now all of those people are in the streets, and the airliners may be coming.

Ummm... what was the point of this scenario, again?
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #31 on: April 24, 2013, 08:03:43 AM »
Really? I'm wrong? The cops do have a duty to protect? Hmm, ok. Take your pick:

I did...and you refuse to look at it.  U.S. v. Smith.  1986.

Quote
Exigent circumstances arise when the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched

 
Quote
Put the projector down, TRG. It is you that "thinks" it's not a violation.


No it's the 10th Circuit Court ruling.

Quote
Care to explain how that has anything to do with what happened? Smith was suspected of trafficking narcotics. What were these people suspected of doing?

Sure.  

Quote
Officer Haran was legally upon the wing of the Smith aircraft when it was first detected parked at the Durango airport in order to determine whether it was occupied by smugglers who may have been armed and dangerous.

The cops in Boston were on a Manhunt for an armed and dagerous terrorist who was hiding in a residential neighborhood.  To determine whether the terrorist was hiding in a house in the 20 block search area where he was last seen it was necessary due to exigent curcimstances to remove the people from the house and search for the armed and dagerous terrorist.

So again the important takeaway from Smith that applies here is:

Quote
the law enforcement officers have reasonable grounds to believe that there is an immediate need to protect their lives, the lives of others, their property, or that of others, the search is not motivated by an intent to arrest and seize evidence, and there is some reasonable basis, to associate an emergency with the area or place to be searched

Show me where given what we know about the manhunt last friday any of the above isn't true or relavent to the actions of the officers.

Quote
Again, what were these people suspected of doing? Being terrorists? Anything to back it up? Is there a paper trail? Are there voice recordings?


Nothing.  Again the reason for the officers actions are stated above.

Quote
No, I gathered that from you comparing us to Alex Jones because we don't believe cops should be able to go door to door, guns drawn, forcing people out of their homes with their hands over their heads with no justification whatsoever. "There might be a terrorist in Watertown" is not justification to violate the Constitution because "there might be a terrorist" in any number of towns. [/quyote]

I don't eitehr.  You're assuming that because I disagree this one time I believe it should be this way all the time and you couldn't be more wrong.  There wasn't a "might" to there being a terrorist in Watertown...there WAS a terrorist on the loose in Watertown.  I listened to the scanner from the time I got here Friday morning until they shut it off right before I left.  Go look at the updates I was posting in Breaking News on this.  There was no possibly...no maybe or could be...ther WAS a cop killing bomb throwing Islamofascist terrorist on the loose in Watertown.

[quoteSlippery slope you seem to be going down, TRG.

Nope quite the contrary.  This is actioally the only time I can think of where I'd see the necesity for for what we're discussing.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #32 on: April 24, 2013, 08:06:33 AM »
I'll play out your scenario.

The government receives a report that four airliners have been hijacked, and the hijackers plan to (meaning "maybe") crash them somewhere in the cities of New York and Washington DC, within the next X hours. For the purposes of your scenario, the suburbs don't count.

Except that they do in D.C. there are residential areas all around the Pentagon plus hi rise Apartment buildings and in NYC.

Quote
In response to this threat, the police in both cities enter the homes and businesses of the residents without consent or warrant, and order (meaning force) the people into the streets, at gunpoint.  They have violated the constitutional rights of those citizens.


Perhaps I missed it but I didn't see in any of the pics I've looked at one LEO pointing a weapon at person leaving the house.

The reset of what you're adding to the scenario to fit your outcome has already been covered under exigent circumstances that I cited from the Davis case.

Quote
But, they have bigger problems, because now all of those people are in the streets, and the airliners may be coming.

Airliner crashes into a row of houses where the people were evacuated from and are now at a checkpoint outside the damage zone for where the plane could hit.

Who wins in that situation?

You'd have us believe that it's better for someone to have a terrorist come into someone's house and blow themselves AND the occuptants up just so your interprtation of what the 4th Amdnement states isn't violated.

Quote
Ummm... what was the point of this scenario, again?

 :whatever:
« Last Edit: April 24, 2013, 08:10:02 AM by txradioguy »
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15581
  • Reputation: +1954/-213
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #33 on: April 24, 2013, 08:07:56 AM »
Could a judge issue a single search warrant that would cover an entire neighborhood?

Just asking.

Nope. A search warrant must describe the particular premises to be searched, the thing (or person) being searched for, and the probable cause for that search.
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #34 on: April 24, 2013, 08:09:10 AM »

I don't eitehr.  You're assuming that because I disagree this one time I believe it should be this way all the time and you couldn't be more wrong.  There wasn't a "might" to there being a terrorist in Watertown...there WAS a terrorist on the loose in Watertown.  I listened to the scanner from the time I got here Friday morning until they shut it off right before I left.  Go look at the updates I was posting in Breaking News on this.  There was no possibly...no maybe or could be...ther WAS a cop killing bomb throwing Islamofascist terrorist on the loose in Watertown.

Amazing you defend your stand with a 10th Circuit Court ruling that set precedent, which I contend has nothing to do with this situation, yet still can't understand how this scenario that just happened, which you happen to agree with, doesn't also set precedent. "Hey look! A bank robber just ran into that neighborhood! There's a threat! Let's go door to door dragging people out of their house at gunpoint!".

T-Total bullshit.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #35 on: April 24, 2013, 08:14:46 AM »
Amazing you defend your stand with a 10th Circuit Court ruling that set precedent, which I contend has nothing to do with this situation, yet still can't understand how this scenario that just happened, which you happen to agree with, doesn't also set precedent. "Hey look! A bank robber just ran into that neighborhood! There's a threat! Let's go door to door dragging people out of their house at gunpoint!".

How do you know there wasn't a "knock and annouce" warrant signed by a judge before all of this began?  

Oh wait that's right...

Quote
T-Total bullshit.

No that's what your interpretation of the whole scenario is.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #36 on: April 24, 2013, 08:16:36 AM »
An exigent circumstance, in the American law of criminal procedure, allows law enforcement to enter a structure without a search warrant, or if they have a "knock and announce" warrant, without knocking and waiting for refusal under certain circumstances. It must be a situation where people are in imminent danger, evidence faces imminent destruction, or a suspect will escape.
 
In the criminal procedure context, exigent circumstance means:
 

An emergency situation requiring swift action to prevent imminent danger to life or serious damage to property, or to forestall the imminent escape of a suspect, or destruction of evidence. There is no ready litmus test for determining whether such circumstances exist, and in each case the extraordinary situation must be measured by the facts known by officials.[1]
 

Those circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to believe that entry (or other relevant prompt action) was necessary to prevent physical harm to the officers or other persons, the destruction of relevant evidence, the escape of a suspect, or some other consequence improperly frustrating legitimate law enforcement efforts.[2]
 
Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists. The existence of exigent circumstances is a mixed question of law and fact.[3] There is no absolute test for determining if exigent circumstances exist, but general factors have been identified. These include: clear evidence of probable cause; the seriousness of the offense and likelihood of destruction of evidence; limitations on the search to minimize the intrusion only to preventing destruction of evidence; and clear indications of exigency.
 
Exigency may be determined by: degree of urgency involved; amount of time needed to get a search warrant; whether evidence is about to be removed or destroyed; danger at the site; knowledge of the suspect that police are on his or her trail; and/or ready destructibility of the evidence.[4] In determining the time necessary to obtain a warrant, a telephonic warrant should be considered. As electronic data may be altered or eradicated in seconds, in a factually compelling case the doctrine of exigent circumstances will support a warrantless seizure.
 
Even in exigent circumstances, while a warrantless seizure may be permitted, a subsequent warrant to search may still be necessary.[5]

1.^ People v. Ramey, 545 P.2d 1333,1341 (Cal. 1976)
 2.^ United States v. McConney, 728 F. 2d 1195, 1199 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 824 (1984)
 3.^ United States v. Anderson, 154 F. 3d 1225 (10th Cir, 1998) cert. denied 119 S. Ct. 2048 (1999) (citations omitted)
 4.^ United States v. Reed, 935 F. 2d 641 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 960 (1991).
 5.^ See Grosenheider, supra and United States v. David, 756 F. Supp. 1385 (D. Nev. 1991)


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #37 on: April 24, 2013, 08:19:45 AM »
How do you know there wasn't a "knock and annouce" warrant signed by a judge before all of this began?  


Because you can't get a Damn "knock and announce" warrant for an entire neighborhood. I'm surprised at just how many rights you're willing to forgo if the circumstances warrant it, circumstances that are ALWAYS subjective. Watertown isn't a combat zone. The "local commander" can't usurp an innocent person's constitutional rights, who isn't suspected of a damn thing, any time he/she sees fit.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #38 on: April 24, 2013, 08:20:53 AM »
Interesting discussion back and forth.

Regardless the length and breadth of the banter, it'll be interesting to see whether or not the ambulance-chasing lawyers will take that video, identify the homes/residents who were rousted, and gin up a lawsuit against the city of Watertown/Boston.

Lawsuit in 3...2...1...
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #39 on: April 24, 2013, 08:21:27 AM »

Exigent circumstances may make a warrantless search constitutional if probable cause exists.

Show me the probable cause. I'll wait...
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #40 on: April 24, 2013, 08:22:18 AM »
Because you can't get a Damn "knock and announce" warrant for an entire neighborhood.

So the answer is you don't know.  Got it.


Quote
I'm surprised at just how many rights you're willing to forgo if the circumstances warrant it, circumstances that are ALWAYS subjective. Watertown isn't a combat zone. The "local commander" can't usurp an innocent person's constitutional rights, who isn't suspected of a damn thing, any time he/she sees fit.

And yet the law as I've stated and will continue to cite...along with cases that back up the exigent circumstances in this situation says you're wrong...no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #41 on: April 24, 2013, 08:23:46 AM »
And yet the law as I've stated and will continue to cite...along with cases that back up the exigent circumstances in this situation says you're wrong...no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.

Someone is wrong here, but it isn't me. Every damn case you mentioned was individual-based.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #42 on: April 24, 2013, 08:25:37 AM »
Show me the probable cause. I'll wait...



Quote
Police are swarming to a Watertown, MA neighborhood where suspect #2 Dzhokhar Tsarnaev is believed to be cornered, and dozens of gunshots have been fired.

At least 20 to 30 shots rang out in the Boston suburb where police seem to have finally caught up with the 19-year-old Boston Marathon bombing suspect.

Police have been searching all day for Dzhokhar ever since the gun battle last night, also in Watertown ... in which his brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev was shot and killed.

According to TV reports ... Dzhokhar is still alive on a boat in a backyard, and surrounded by police.



http://www.tmz.com/2013/04/19/boston-marathon-bombing-suspects-police-search-corner-dzhokhar-tsarnaev/#ixzz2RO4YHW7O


The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #43 on: April 24, 2013, 08:26:34 AM »
Someone is wrong here, but it isn't me. Every damn case you mentioned was individual-based.

 :whatever:  And if a DUmmie used that excuse you'd skewer them for splitting hairs.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Big Dog

  • ^^Smokes cigars and knows things.
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 15581
  • Reputation: +1954/-213
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #44 on: April 24, 2013, 08:27:12 AM »
Except that they do in D.C. there are residential areas all around the Pentagon plus hi rise Apartment buildings and in NYC.

You said "Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood." 

I included the cities of NYC and Washington DC based on your words, and excluded the suburbs for the same reason. I excluded the entire state of Pennsylvania to make the scenario manageable.

If you want, I'll rewrite my reply to include all suburbs and every jurisdiction in Pennsylvania responding and telling (ordering) the citizens to leave their homes and businesses and going into the streets (based on 'Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out"'), but I think that would be silly.
Government is the negation of liberty.
  -Ludwig von Mises

CAVE FVROREM PATIENTIS.

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #45 on: April 24, 2013, 08:27:47 AM »
Interesting discussion back and forth.

Regardless the length and breadth of the banter, it'll be interesting to see whether or not the ambulance-chasing lawyers will take that video, identify the homes/residents who were rousted, and gin up a lawsuit against the city of Watertown/Boston.

Lawsuit in 3...2...1...

They will and it will be an individual named in the case versus the U.S.

The same kind of case that Rebel claims isn't valid in what I'm citing.
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline txradioguy

  • Minister of Propaganda
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18686
  • Reputation: +1291/-1116
  • Rule 39
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #46 on: April 24, 2013, 08:28:25 AM »
You said "Lets say we had advance warning of what planes were gonna hit DC NY and Pennsylvania but not the exact building or neighborhood." 

I included the cities of NYC and Washington DC based on your words, and excluded the suburbs for the same reason. I excluded the entire state of Pennsylvania to make the scenario manageable.

If you want, I'll rewrite my reply to include all suburbs and every jurisdiction in Pennsylvania responding and telling (ordering) the citizens to leave their homes and businesses and going into the streets (based on 'Cops race into the neighborhoods or the office buildings in those areas were the planes are most likely to hit and start telling people to "get out"'), but I think that would be silly.

Ummm...ok  :whatever:
The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years. The cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil.

Creator of the largest Fight Club thread ever!

http://conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=83285.0

Offline Rebel

  • Stick a fork in us. We're done.
  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 16748
  • Reputation: +1231/-215
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #47 on: April 24, 2013, 08:29:43 AM »
Showing me a picture of a perp is "probable cause" to go door to door forcing people from their homes at gunpoint, while their homes are searched? Talk about a ****ing stretch, TRG.

Here you go, I just picked a random photo of a suspect off Yahoo. This guy is seen robbing a store. He's armed. He fled into the vicinity of ________ Neighborhood.



You've just argued that you have absolutely NO problem with teams of cops in MRAPS showing up armed to the teeth and forcing people at gunpoint from their homes while their homes are searched. Innocent people that have done nothing wrong.

Your compass on Constitutionality must be in the calibration shop, TRG.
NAMBLA is a left-wing organization.

Quote
There's a reason why patriotism is considered a conservative value. Watch a Tea Party rally and you'll see people proudly raising the American flag and showing pride in U.S. heroes such as Thomas Jefferson. Watch an OWS rally and you'll see people burning the American flag while showing pride in communist heroes such as Che Guevera. --Bob, from some news site

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #48 on: April 24, 2013, 08:34:50 AM »
So the answer is you don't know.  Got it.


And yet the law as I've stated and will continue to cite...along with cases that back up the exigent circumstances in this situation says you're wrong...no matter how much you wish it were otherwise.

You're citing a court case -- US vs. Smith 1986 -- whose details and rationale aren't always clear.

Did you read the entire decision, TRG?

Here's the first couple of paragraphs from the 10th Circuit's opinion:

Quote
We hold that the initial warrantless search of the Smith "target" airplane at the Durango, Colorado, airport was a valid search conducted by Officers Haran and Olson based upon the existence of probable cause and exigent circumstances. Thus, all subsequent seizures effected from the airplane were valid. We observe that none of the items seized pursuant to a search warrant on April 11, 1985, from Smith's residence and pickup truck were introduced in evidence at trial; thus, no prejudice resulted to Smith in terms of admission of fruit of an illegal search and seizure that day.
Officer Haran was legally upon the wing of the Smith aircraft when it was first detected parked at the Durango airport in order to determine whether it was occupied by smugglers who may have been armed and dangerous. Thus, the marijuana observed by Officer Haran within the cabin compartment was in "plain view." Objects within the plain view of an officer, who has a right to be in a position to have

From the bolded above, what I'm gathering from it in this case is, there wasn't a warrant. Yet the officers had probable cause to search it because of marijuana seen in the cabin while the cop was legally on the wing of the aircraft. And yet none of the items seized from Smith's home and truck were even entered into trial, with or without a warrant.

Apples and oranges.

None of the cops could be certain that the bomber entered into ANY of the homes they rousted. Yet they chose to exhibit the blanket "one size fits all" methodology. That's a dangerous decision, but clearly one that the cop head shed made.

It's my bet they will suffer the consequences of that decision in the form of one or more lawsuits from those who were rousted out of their homes.
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.

Offline Eupher

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 24894
  • Reputation: +2828/-1828
  • U.S. Army, Retired
Re: COMPLETELY UNCONSTITITIONAL!
« Reply #49 on: April 24, 2013, 08:38:04 AM »
They will and it will be an individual named in the case versus the U.S.

The same kind of case that Rebel claims isn't valid in what I'm citing.

Why would a lawsuit cite the US as a defendant when it was the city of Boston that conducted the searches? Makes no sense.

And based on my post just above, I agree with Rebel. The case you're citing isn't valid. It's apples and oranges, though I definitely want to underline that NONE OF US babbling in this thread is a lawyer.
Adams E2 Euphonium, built in 2017
Boosey & Co. Imperial Euphonium, built in 1941
Edwards B454 bass trombone, built 2012
Bach Stradivarius 42OG tenor trombone, built 1992
Kanstul 33-T BBb tuba, built 2011
Fender Precision Bass Guitar, built ?
Mouthpiece data provided on request.