Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

To: politicalmerc

I have no idea about the context, but it appears that your civil rights were violated in a big way.

But again, if you don’t say what you were accused of, none of us should or even can make a decision whether the police were utterly out of line or not.

If you were accused of having illegal weapons or drugs in your house, then I’d tend to agree with you. On the other hand, if you were accused of child / spousal abuse or kidnapping, simply letting the officers ask your wife if everything ok would have resolved the situation. So in the second case, while _technically_ you would be right, it would have been plain stupid not to have just cooperated (you could have asked your wife to step outside with the kid...thus denying them the right to enter your house)

But without details, how can you expect unmitigated sympathy?


35 posted on 08/20/2009 7:40:08 AM PDT by markomalley (Extra Ecclesiam nulla salus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: markomalley
You are a nut. FIRST, keep your sympathy, I don't need it, want it, or care about it. Secondly, I was accused of stealing money and the details are none of your business. I had proof in the house that the allegations were false but your simplistic analysis of what happened misses the point.

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.

I don't care if I was accused of molesting an entire 3rd grade class (though as I said it was an accusations of theft) a persons CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS apply. If they don't apply to some cases, they don't apply to any.

Your cynical, swarthy attitude just flatly pisses me off. I didn't ask you to believe me, or to sympathize with me, but you certainly have NO BASIS to assume the worst about me. It's people like YOU who act like the Sargent did because you believe that Constitutional rights are OPTIONAL depending upon what the circumstance is.

60 posted on 08/20/2009 7:49:18 AM PDT by politicalmerc (If Birthers are so silly, then why not show the BC and put them to shame?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Yes, we all know that it is the seriousness of the accusation that is important, not following the law.

If there is imminent danger to someone, then, as I understand it, the police wouldn’t need a warrant to enter a home. Absent that, what excuse do they have for violating the law and their sworn duty?

Do you want your freedoms to be subject to the whim of every person that can pick up a phone and make an accusation against you?


77 posted on 08/20/2009 7:56:47 AM PDT by srweaver (Never Forget the Judicial Homicide of Terri Schiavo)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley; politicalmerc
Concur with merc...

Your take on this...
Is definitely all-fouled-up!

80 posted on 08/20/2009 7:58:01 AM PDT by Wings-n-Wind (The main things are the plain things!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
But again, if you don’t say what you were accused of, none of us should or even can make a decision whether the police were utterly out of line or not.

Should not matter what the accusation was if it was false. The Police in this case acted completely out of line, did not possess the proper court ordered documents to enter the premises and criminally endangered the family by their unwarrented armed presence. These stories usually involve the family dog being killed for no good reason and at other times people have been killed defending themselves in the dark of night by police having kicked in the wrong door.

151 posted on 08/20/2009 8:31:07 AM PDT by JrsyJack (There's a little Jim Thompson in all of us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley
Where exactly do YOU draw the line, saying "it's okay to violate a person's Constitutional rights if"... Please clarify.

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.

178 posted on 08/20/2009 8:50:30 AM PDT by I'm ALL Right! (I love the Bill of Rights. Is that extremist?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

To: markomalley

Used to be they weren’t supposed to come in without a warrant. Why send six dudes without a warrant? Doesn’t make sense. Doesn’t add up.


208 posted on 08/20/2009 9:50:07 AM PDT by ichabod1 (I am rolling over in my grave and I am not even dead yet (GOP Poet))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson