yup, but i can't afford that one... the EOTech i have 8^)
Posted on 05/16/2011 8:40:02 PM PDT by wrastu
Adding rubber-stamp on-line warrant judges isn't going to help anything. What's needed is to allow defense attorneys to put questions of warrant legitimacy before trial-court juries. Inform the jury in trial court that unless the state proves that a warrant was obtained and served 100% legitimately, the jury should not regard any evidence gained by the warrant in any manner detrimental to the defense.
To be sure, a lot of jurors might convict someone using evidence they really shouldn't have considered, but a lot of jurors would, with the right defense arguments, quite properly refuse to go along with some of what the police would call "probable cause". Presently, when police seek a warrant there's no way for the intended target to cross-examine them and uncover information that may show that their "probable cause" is a sham. For example, if police get a warrant based upon the fact that drug activity was observed in a house two months ago, but fail to disclose to the warrant judge that the person who occupied the property then was evicted and someone else moved in, a judge might not quash any evidence stemming from such a warrant, but a jury might be loath to accept it (if nothing else, because it would show such sloppy investigation by the officers involved that their conduct on the case would be untrustworthy).
Not relevant.
This was about entry, not arrest. The officer was attempting to enter the home of a woman who had called 911, and someone who was not domiciled there tried to block his entry. He wasn't making an illegal arrest, etc.
Please read the actual court document; don't just go by the wild claims being made.
If that's the standard by which you wish to operate, please save me the trouble and jump off the cliff yourself. After all... Deus suos agnoscet.
In other words, the officer could have rightfully blown him away.
After all, the officer was called to the scene (so he had the right to be there) and was violently assaulted. Perhaps it would have been reasonable self-defense to shoot the guy with his firearm, not the Taser.
Thank you my FRiend. Between you, Squantos, TLI, and Eaker, I'd have some mighty fine neighbors.
I'm a former resident of the Cleburne enviorns, so I know there's a place in the Lone Star State a-waiting for me.
But if you check out my FReeper Profile, you'll see my home location is now Wyoming, as in git along little dogie, it's your misfortune and none of my own, get along, get along, get along little dogie, for you know that Wyoming will be your new home. Don't forget, of course, that prior to the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, parts of the tresent-day state of Wyoming WERE in Texas.
You betcha. I used to be an alter boy.
I always had trouble with Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam though.
>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.<
I think it will be used by that sheriff in an attempt to circumvent the purpose and intent of the law. Perhaps to have it overturned by overuse.
The sheriff is the one who has to go IMO for even making that statement unless he is trying to draw attention to it and have it reversed.
yup, but i can't afford that one... the EOTech i have 8^)
I agree with all you say and quote.
In my experience domestic violence does escalate very fast and you never really truly know what is happening inside the house. For instance a woman may be too frightened to actually say that they are frightened. Or they may rely upon the abuser to keep them fed and such. A psychological addiction if you will.
So I can see where in todays day and age there has to be some slack to protect victims (men and women) and the officers who intervene. But we must be very careful guarding the law itself and it’s intents. I see where this law could be pushed to go beyond where it is for the safety of people and that is what bothers me.
I have seen a few cops using exigent circumstances in appropriate ways. That is .. VERY seldom and only under VERY select circumstances.
But I have seen other cops trying to “bend” circumstances into exigent circumstances and told them flat out that is not why they are there. Once they understand the intent, they are more in line with what I would think is reasonable.
It is not just the people that have to be respected but the law as well. I hope that officers faced with the decision that this sheriff is making remember that.
Always a roof for ya here Archy.....
Stay Safe !!!
Humorless apparatchik ~ enjoy black humor when you hear it. It is so rare you get to see a real live sheriff say something funny.
The light ain’t one of those curly bulbs either!
But that is exactly how we got where we are.
“Just one more exception.”
If ANY exception was actually needed then the Constitution should be amended.
This is exactly the danger of *spit* precedence; it is only the Judiciary playing a game of Telephone with your rights and liberties.
You have electricity now ?!?!? Or you just giving the Mom so much static ya can read by it ???
Read?
What mean read?
That never requires a warrant. Never did require a warrent. Never will require a warrant.
It is difficult to believe there are people who imagine the cops have to stand by waiting on a warrant to assist someone who has invited them in to help her.
Somebody smokes some heavy stuff to come up with that take on the deal.
There was no non-consensual entry in this case so why do you keep bringing it up?
>But that is exactly how we got where we are.
“Just one more exception.”
If ANY exception was actually needed then the Constitution should be amended.
This is exactly the danger of *spit* precedence; it is only the Judiciary playing a game of Telephone with your rights and liberties.<
Well i think maybe your tossing the baby out with the bath water. A bit of overkill if you get my drift.
The constitution was a framework of rights of the people and responsibilities of the government to the people and individual states.
It gives the states rights to make their own laws, which is what we are seeing here. It is not a universal law equally applied through out the united states at this point.
So a constitutional convention that would be required to change that search and seizure clause in the constitution would be unreasonable and not very feasible. The state can amend what it needs to in the times through legislation or courts.
What we are seeing here is what the founders believed would happen. They knew that they could not possibly write a document that could cover every advancement that we would make as a republic. So they left the states and the courts the ability to change some of the laws without changing the intent of the basic law.
If a continental congress is called, it would not be limited to ratify one piece of the constitution. The whole thing would be subject to revision. Which is why they made it so hard to revise.
The exceptions that are being made are because we have technology that is becoming ever more dangerous, quick and untimely for courts to decide.
imagine what George Washington would have thought about this type of weapon?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOyt6imlgLo
They may have changed the entire second amendment right then and there. (after he picked up his teeth that is)
They knew that changes would be made, advancements that they could not even begin to fathom. So they devised a way to make changes in the law, without breaking the very spirit and intent of the law.
these exceptions need to remain just that “exceptions” and tightly controlled. But to change the entire constitution is opening a can of worms that they never wanted.
>No doubt the sheriff meant that tongue in cheek.
Humorless apparatchik ~ enjoy black humor when you hear it. It is so rare you get to see a real live sheriff say something funny.<
Well I read what he said, but you can’t really tell without voice inflection and facial expressions. I hope that it is dark humor and he is bringing attention to the issue that way.
But from reading it only (I didn’t watch the video) i couldn’t say for sure.
I did read the opinion and the way it was reported .. was to say the least overblown.
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.