Posted on 05/16/2011 8:40:02 PM PDT by wrastu
Here it comes
Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr.
http://www.mikechurch.com/Today-s-Lead-Story/in-sheriff-if-we-need-to-conduct-random-house-to-house-searches-we-will.html
Thanks Arthur Wildfire! March.
“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.”
(And BOY did that court Approach that public liberty! [...and took a dump on it.] )
“The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government - lest it come to dominate our lives and interests.”
(And yet look at how many laws GOVERNMENT AGENTS are exempted from...)
“The liberties of a people never were, nor ever will be, secure, when the transactions of their rulers may be concealed from them.”
(A warrant is the official documentation of what they're looking for.)
This will be treated as a single decision in a single case without any wider application. On the other hand I think it will be used as a reason to REMOVE this judge at the next confirmation election.
INDEED TO THE MAX.
AND
WHEN
the people
persistently, routinely
believe the
GOVERNMENT/OLIGARCHY’S OWNED PRESS AGENTS/MEDIA
as purveyors of truth
it is just as suicidal as surrendering our guns.
>You hope the SCOTUS will say fruit of the poisionous tree but hope is not a strategy that you can count on.
And, if you take a look at the 4th Amendment case the USSC decided the other day — about police-created exigence being valid — it’s actually more likely that GINSBURG will be the one dissenting claiming poisoned-tree...
(Ginsburg was the only dissent in that case.)
That is a bitter irony isn't it? However, the guy who wrote the program, Drake, also says the NSA has wasted billions of dollars when they could have done a better job without breaking the law. So it's still the typical monkeys diddling footballs gov outfit.
You should read the article. The computer programs they are using can pull out whatever information they have stored based on whatever profile they input. That doesn’t just mean a profile of a person either. Think of activity. Any kind of activity.
>>I dont care WHAT the court says... if someone UNLAWFULLY breaks into my house, they are getting shot.
>
>And how will you determine “unlawfully”?
CBOLDT posted the answer: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2720824/posts?page=142#142
The SCOTUS needs to slap this down right away. Its insane. Good old Mitch Daniels appointed one of those morons that voted for the ruling.
Mitch you don’t use good judgement. We already have a guy like that in the Oval Office.
FReeping hilarious!
Far be it from me to be an optimist, but these are NOT the same cases.
I’d only point out that in the Indiana decision the Judge writes “for not reason at all”, whereas in the Kentucky case there was a reason. Not a good reason, maybe, etc., but still a reason, a suspicion.
My understanding (which may be quite screwed up, but it is what it is) of the Indiana case is that the cops/gov’t could well have made the case that those cops also had a “reason to be suspicious”, but that was not the case made, or in any event it was not the decision rendered.
So, I’m still expecting that Indiana case to be appealed, but I suppose if the original defendant won’t appeal it there might be nobody with standing.
as to the man who was killed in Arizona (Arizona, right?) that I think is different too because I think the cops had a warrant. Also that is so screwed up and will be litigated for a damn long time, I imagine. There is good money to be had there and you probably won’t be able to beat the lawyers off with a stick, which in this case is all to the good.
But, in essence I do agree with you. I’m afraid we have some serious future cop-problems on the horizon.
Luckily many, many Americans own their own equipment for defense.
The important thing is that we all keep paying attention and try and get more and more people to start paying attention. We have to do the hard work of self-governance.
It's been the law in other states for some time. Why is it urgent now?
buckshot will not reliable penetrate a decent vest
but a 30-06 deer rifle will drill through one deputy and get the one behind him too...
Sorry, but unless you are loading that 30-06 to 300W. Mag. or above, and using 30-06 WW II armor piercing bullets, there is armor available to stop a mere 30-06 WW II black tip.
As a matter of fact, ability to stop a 30-06 black tip is the test for one class of vest.
A .300-.378 will penetrate any vest, but such a handgun would be best left to the proverbial 800 pound gorilla and its huge hand.
PS Even the gorilla would be bleeding from its ears if it touched off such a round in a room.
PPS Lawyers are the weapon of choice against out of control LEOs.
“The law never required the cops to stand there while crimes were commited waiting for a warrant. NOT EVER!”
Apparently it does not require them to intervene, either.
Cases may be found to that effect, or my personal experience of having two officers watch from half a block away while an assault escalated. They only got into action when the threatened brick was finally actually thrown at my head.
That taught me a lot, to be sure.
Nope, it won't.
When a deputy around these parts started wearing a vest to serve papers to people, a friend said "Good God, K-----, You're just going to force them to go for the head shot!".
I hope the folks in that Sheriff's jurisdiction have the ability to petition for a recall election to get him out of office quickly, and the gumption to do so.
If Patrick Henry were alive today, Napolitano would put him on a list of potential domestic terrorists.
Lawyers for the most part are scum
and most cops wear a vest they can comfortably wear all day...and the SWAT boys carry the heavy stuff...
and PS I come from a family of cops...not to say I know their gear, but I do know cops...Dad past away(old age) 5 years ago...he was a good cop...but my mothers brother was NOT.
Amen. God bless our Founding Fathers. Clearly we have the right to secure our homes.
I’m also curious about the counter point. When we defend our homes from illegal searches by the police, what if a police officer gets hurt because he was given the wrong address?
It’s not cut-and-dry to me — does our protection from illegal searches/seizures also include the right to injure officers?
On the one hand, I’d say that someone shooting at police is going to risk death himself. Officers are allowed to defend themselves.
On the other hand, is it reasonable to presume that the police are so evil that we should shoot at them?
The inability to recognize sarcasm is appears to be forever present on this forum.
“Funny how I’m playing both sides of the issue via two different threads, and getting criticized each way. Not satisfying anyone.”
I call that “kicking the tires” of an issue. I too am concerned about the safety of police. While I believe that their safety should at times be compromised for our freedom, I’m not a monster. I want to keep needless deaths down to a minimum.
If you were the “warrant czar” for a day, able to create laws regardless of the Constitution, appointed by the people to do it through popular demand, how would you resolve this?
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.