Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

Guns, Guns Guns

The Management is not responsible for the contents of this forum. Enter at your own risk.
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by thinkstoomuch   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:14 pm

thinkstoomuch
Admiral

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: United States of America

PeterZ wrote:The authorities did not adequately state their identity or that their search was legal. That made the search suspect. I agree that the presence of the explosive device means the individual should have been investigated. It does not mean that police can conduct searches any way the please. They have their own limits on their behavior. That no charges were filed suggests they acknowledge their failure to act within those limits.

If you are comfortable letting armed intruders who break down your front door and haven't provided adequate identification and justification for breaking down that door threaten your wife and family, have at it. That's your choice. Had those guys been criminals, you and your family could have been toast. Sort of like the pregnant woman raped and murdered during a home invasion. Armed people break down a door with no warning, it is wise to assume the worst and deal with it as such. If police don't provide that adequate warning, they cannot be distinguished from criminal intruders.


http://www.inquisitr.com/2585784/amanda-blackburn-three-arrested-for-rape-and-murder-of-pastors-wife/


It is much more basic than that where is any mention of a search warrant?

Hmmm.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/17/us/oklaho ... index.html

Apparently they didn't have one.

Illegality on the police's fault. Not to mention running off on a hair brained, ill thought action.

The 4th Amendment wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.


Pretty simple, straight forward. Hopefully the next law enforcement officer will consider it. My hopes are not high. Not like this was the first time this has happened.

T2M
-----------------------
Q: “How can something be worth more than it costs? Isn’t everything ‘worth’ what it costs?”
A: “No. That’s just the price. ...
Christopher Anvil from Top Line in "War Games"
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:23 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Not arguing, T2M. I gave the benefit of the doubt that there was such a warrant. Had there not been, this site would have announced it as a warrantless search. Had the police conducted such a search without a warrant, we would have read about a law suit.

Sort of like the kid with the clock box that authorities believed was an IED.

thinkstoomuch wrote:
PeterZ wrote:The authorities did not adequately state their identity or that their search was legal. That made the search suspect. I agree that the presence of the explosive device means the individual should have been investigated. It does not mean that police can conduct searches any way the please. They have their own limits on their behavior. That no charges were filed suggests they acknowledge their failure to act within those limits.

If you are comfortable letting armed intruders who break down your front door and haven't provided adequate identification and justification for breaking down that door threaten your wife and family, have at it. That's your choice. Had those guys been criminals, you and your family could have been toast. Sort of like the pregnant woman raped and murdered during a home invasion. Armed people break down a door with no warning, it is wise to assume the worst and deal with it as such. If police don't provide that adequate warning, they cannot be distinguished from criminal intruders.


http://www.inquisitr.com/2585784/amanda-blackburn-three-arrested-for-rape-and-murder-of-pastors-wife/


It is much more basic than that where is any mention of a search warrant?

Hmmm.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/17/us/oklaho ... index.html

Apparently they didn't have one.

Illegality on the police's fault. Not to mention running off on a hair brained, ill thought action.

The 4th Amendment wrote:The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects,[a] 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.


Pretty simple, straight forward. Hopefully the next law enforcement officer will consider it. My hopes are not high. Not like this was the first time this has happened.

T2M
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 1:37 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

thinkstoomuch wrote:
It is much more basic than that where is any mention of a search warrant?

Hmmm.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/01/17/us/oklaho ... index.html

Apparently they didn't have one.



Bomb threats fall firmly under exigent circumstances presenting an immediate and present danger to public safety.

A warrant is not needed to respond to a bomb threat as the delay in obtaining one could result in people dying. That has been long established by Supreme Court rulings.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by thinkstoomuch   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 2:17 pm

thinkstoomuch
Admiral

Posts: 2729
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 1:05 pm
Location: United States of America

PeterZ wrote:Not arguing, T2M. I gave the benefit of the doubt that there was such a warrant. Had there not been, this site would have announced it as a warrantless search. Had the police conducted such a search without a warrant, we would have read about a law suit.

Sort of like the kid with the clock box that authorities believed was an IED.


Not really arguing either. I should have specified that I didn't disagree with your post.

I wouldn't have pressed a suit in that situation. Burned hand teaches best and all.

Then again someone who believes in personal responsibility not the all mighty power of the dollar. I think these people have learned a lot. Namely there is always time to think. Or else you are so screwed it doesn't matter.

If the idiots had come into my house with no warrant. I I am stuck with trying to right the wrong in a different fashion. Which just ends up raising the taxes on my friends and neighbors to pay the settlement.

Much like the reason I won't ever stay at a Best Western. I will bad mouth them at any opportunity. Different long stories.

Have fun,
T2M
-----------------------
Q: “How can something be worth more than it costs? Isn’t everything ‘worth’ what it costs?”
A: “No. That’s just the price. ...
Christopher Anvil from Top Line in "War Games"
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Tenshinai   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:27 pm

Tenshinai
Admiral

Posts: 2893
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 8:34 pm
Location: Sweden

PeterZ wrote:Suspending limitations on searches is illegal


No it isn´t. As long as it´s done legally it is perfectly legal.
And has been done by USA as well.

PeterZ wrote:As for anarchy, rights are defined by laws. When there are no laws, there are no rights.


Oh yay, well done, you figured out half of what i said at least.
Pity you´re not understanding it as a whole.

PeterZ wrote:What privileges one has depends on what one can secure. The more people, resources and weapons one can bring to bear securing privileges, the more privileges one can expect to enjoy.


:lol:

Yes, dictatures always sounds so much fun don´t they? As long as you´re not living them at least.
Seriously, you need to start thinking.

PeterZ wrote:1) I agree. The patriot act and FISA courts make a hash out of due process. Part of the reason Rand Paul and Ted Cruz have a following in the Presidential elections. However, if federal agents stormed into a home without announcing themselves and presenting a warrant for their search and the homeowners survived a firefight, they might just win the case in court.


No they wont. Look at where such cases HAVE happened. Did the US state get trashed in court afterwards? Nearly always the answer is a big fat and complete NOPE.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Eyal   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 4:59 pm

Eyal
Captain (Junior Grade)

Posts: 334
Joined: Wed Aug 22, 2012 3:09 pm
Location: Israel

thinkstoomuch wrote:To illustrate PeterZ's point. Be aware Ghostery had 15 blocks.

http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-police- ... t-charged/

Law enforcement(government) violates a citizens rights. Citizen shoots law enforcement personnel. No charges. Seems like the system does work who'da thunk.

T2M


This is not a good example for the discussion. In this case he wasn't aware the intruders were police, and therefore was considered to be acting in self defense - the situation would presumably have been the same if he police had had a warrant (and other facts remained unchanged). If he knew it was the police, knew they were conducting an illegal search, responded with force and got away with it - then it would be an appropriate counterexample.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by Annachie   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:04 pm

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

Although a quick point.

The average punter should always assume that the police are within their rights.
If not for the person being searched/whatever to say that said search is illegal, it's the job of the courts after the fact.

That's not to say you can't sucessfully force the police to back down by firmly affirming your rights and belief that their action is illegal, but only the courts can actually say it.

Of course requiring a good faith belief that the police have done the paperwork means that the police should be extra careful to get the paper work right.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:23 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Ignorance is no defense in this case. Had the police announced themselves properly and the firing ensued, the homeowner would have been guilty of of resisting arrest at a minimum. His only defense was that the search as conducted was illegal.

Eyal wrote:
thinkstoomuch wrote:To illustrate PeterZ's point. Be aware Ghostery had 15 blocks.

http://bearingarms.com/oklahoma-police- ... t-charged/

Law enforcement(government) violates a citizens rights. Citizen shoots law enforcement personnel. No charges. Seems like the system does work who'da thunk.

T2M


This is not a good example for the discussion. In this case he wasn't aware the intruders were police, and therefore was considered to be acting in self defense - the situation would presumably have been the same if he police had had a warrant (and other facts remained unchanged). If he knew it was the police, knew they were conducting an illegal search, responded with force and got away with it - then it would be an appropriate counterexample.
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by PeterZ   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:29 pm

PeterZ
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 6432
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2011 1:11 pm
Location: Colorado

Agreed, with the proviso that if the police do not give the homeowner the opportunity to allow the search in the first place then the homeowner can reasonably assume the worst.

Annachie wrote:Although a quick point.

The average punter should always assume that the police are within their rights.
If not for the person being searched/whatever to say that said search is illegal, it's the job of the courts after the fact.

That's not to say you can't sucessfully force the police to back down by firmly affirming your rights and belief that their action is illegal, but only the courts can actually say it.

Of course requiring a good faith belief that the police have done the paperwork means that the police should be extra careful to get the paper work right.

Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
Top
Re: Guns, Guns Guns
Post by gcomeau   » Mon Nov 30, 2015 6:34 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:Ignorance is no defense in this case. Had the police announced themselves properly and the firing ensued, the homeowner would have been guilty of of resisting arrest at a minimum. His only defense was that the search as conducted was illegal.


Nothing in the reporting linked so far here says that, you are simply leaping to conclusions.

If the police decided, just for example, not to charge the guy because they believed him when he said he hadn't heard them announce their identity and would prefer to focus on whoever called in a fake bomb threat in order to trigger a SWAT assault on somebody's house instead of spending their energy prosecuting the person who had been targeted by that fraud that would be rather understandable don't you think?
Top

Return to Politics