Posted on 08/20/2009 7:25:12 AM PDT by politicalmerc
Excuse the vanity but you guys MUST hear this. As you know if you have read any of my posts, I use to be an attorney. Well, my friendly local police department just made a HUGE MISTAKE and I can assure you they will pay for it. I post it here, not for sympathy but to show just how eroded our rights have become.
I believe poster said he has a copy of the tape.
QUITE SO.
However,
Those days are over . . . at least until Armageddon is past.
If I were you, I would want to know who leveled these charges against you.
Do you know? Can you find out?
Boy, sure sounds like the police were overstepping their bounds. Interesting thread . Good advice for any one,on what to do, should they encounter a similar situation.
Are you aware of this one?
AND..., if there was *ever a time* for FReepers (and also Christians) to be aware of *all their rights* under the Constitution, it would be now. We should have “tutorials” on how to protect one’s rights (and also, some FReepers ought to be instructed on how these same rights apply to “criminals”, too... actually)....
But, especially, they apply to us... and maybe right now...
Interesting - my elderly neighbor called for medics a couple of weeks ago, and the police walked around her house peering in all the widows. Eventually, they broke in.
Now I understand. Tough situation.
I’ve read so many stories of how courts have thrown out claims with the “acted in good faith” decision ... example is the Denver police - in over 20 years of this sort of thing no Denver cop was ever convicted ... it happens, I’m just saying ....
Ouch!
I admire you for your stand on the issue.
Whithout an arrest warrant or a search warrant, I wonder why they chose to show up at your doorstep, in force, rather than calling you and asking you to come down to the police station. It sounds to me like this was a personal issue and not a legal issue.
Clearly an abuse of power.
Absolutely. Any evidence found would certainly be difficult to be admissible in court without having a search warrant.
I would like to hear the police explanation for having no search or arrest warrant when they were questioning a suspect at their home for a possible complaint of theft, and then they enter the home and arrest the occupants for obstruction of justice. Based on the story so far, the Lt. didn't have a satisfactory answer ("Well, Sir, the officers were there investigating a complaint. You could have just cooperated and made everything much easier on everyone.").
It looks like a Fourth Amendment case: "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."
Great video.
Talking to the Police by Professor James Duane
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en
ALSO..., in that lecture is a police investigator on why one should *never* talk to the police — even “innocent people”...
“George Bruch from the Virginia Beach police department responds to Professor James Duane’s presentation on why innocent people should never talk to the police.”
18 usc 242
DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW
Summary:
Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For the purpose of Section 242, acts under “color of law” include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the their lawful authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official’s lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color, religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the victim.
The offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and the resulting injury, if any.
http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.php
Outrageous! I admire your readiness for this situation. As a real woman, I always admire real men who do what needs to be done. I can’t believe they’d manhandle a mother and child,,,oh wait I can believe it. That makes me the most angry, bruising a mother and endangering a baby. I hope you take those union thugs for all that unprofessional, unConstitutional PD is worth. Best of luck in your fight for justice!
>>>First, cops rarely ask overt questions. You have to find out what they are there for first. Secondly, I don’t care if you are JESUS, you shouldn’t talk to them until you find out as much as you can. Third, YOU STILL SHOULDN’T TALK without an attorney present.
On that note, this YouTube vid is required viewing for anyone remotely interested in why what you say here is true. And especially for anyone who questions what you say.
Don’t Talk to Cops, Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Mr. James Duane, a professor at Regent Law School and a former defense attorney, tells you why you should never agree to be interviewed by the police.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik
Liberals are against one amendment of the constitution they're against all of them. Good luck suing those pigs for what happened.
Interesting.
Practically, liberty does have its risks. As in “swim at your own risk.” The goverment can keep you from drowning, but only by keeping you from swimming.
I am frightened by the number of Americans who seem willing to exchange individual liberty for government “security.”
They seem to think the government can manage their lives better than they can themselves.
In my view, these type of individuals are not “fit” citizens for a free society.
HAA! GMTA!
According to your post, you're saying he should have just rolled over when the police accused him, illegally entered his home, and roughed up his wife and child based on someone's report to their office(without proof!) Think about that again. Shall I trump up some charges and report you for something? Let's see what you think about Constitutional rights when they show up at your door, bust into your home, and push your family around.
Here's the deal: EVEN IF HE DID IT, (he told us he was falsely accused and all charges were dropped) he STILL HAS HIS CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS and was to be presumed INNOCENT. He absolutely has the right to refuse to speak without an attorney and refuse entry into his home without a warrant. The whole "if he has nothing to hide he'd comply" crap is just that - CRAP. TECHNICALLY, he was right and they were completely out of line.
They should be, but they are not. So, absent the law working, civil suits are the means to getting the polidiots’ attention.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.