Posted on 12/30/2010 4:19:27 PM PST by smokingfrog
Shouts break the evening silence.
“Police! Search warrant!”
Officers burst through the door. A man appears across the room. Metal glints from his clasped hands. Shots echo from a police-issue Glock 22. Todd Blair slumps to the floor.
“Five seconds,” said Blair’s mother, Arlean. “In five seconds, he was dead.”
Officers entered Blair’s home Sept. 16 during a drug raid when he stepped into the hall, wielding a golf club, police video shows. Ogden police Sgt. Troy Burnett shot Blair, 45, in the head and chest.
The shooting was deemed legally justified.
(Excerpt) Read more at sltrib.com ...
And you’re a statist jack-booted thug. Especially if you think that it’s just fine that thousands of un-Constitutional raids are conducted every year. I hope they send you through the door first every time.
Contrary to your contention, the law looks at the manner in which an object (including hands or feet) is used. If that object is used in a manner that is calculated or likely to produce death or serious bodily injury, then it is a deadly weapon.
Thus, the term "deadly weapon" can be situational. For instance, if a 120 lb nerd punches a 240 lb football player in the chest, the Court is not likely to find that the fist in that case was a deadly weapon. However, if the 240 lb football player punches the 120 lb nerd in the head and then gets on top of him on the ground and then begins to pummel him in the head and face with his hands, the Court would likely find that the hands in that instance were deadly weapons.
However, in other instances, there is no situational aspect to the deadly weapon. A gun, a golf club wielded as a skull bashing device, a knife, or other like instrumentality will virtually always be considered to be a deadly weapon if used in an assaultive manner against another.
Learn the law. What you think is the law, isn't the law.
BTW: The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the job of interpreting what the Constitution means. The Supreme Court has unanimously interpreted the word "unreasonable" in the 4th Amendment to sometimes allow the use of a no-knock warrant.
I agree that no-knocks should be limited to the circumstances outlined by Justice Thomas. However, you seem to think that you know more about the law and the Constitution than Justice Thomas (and the rest of the Supreme Court), and that the Framers were wrong to place the Constitutional role of interpreting the law (along with the judicial power) in the Supreme Court.
If that is indeed your contention, then it is you who is arguing against the Constitutional system.
If you really think that you know more than Justice Thomas, please make your case. Cite authority to back your position.
Save yourself some money. One pound of black powder will level a house.
Can you prove this contention? Since you made the assertion, I'm sure that you'll be able to cite sources that prove your assertion, right?
The case you cited earlier wasn't even about a no-knock warrant. Now who is the liar?
The Supreme Court upheld Roe v. Wade. How's that work for your conservative philosophy?
Um, It wasn’t ‘law’ I was citing, it was logic [and possibly language].
And just because things have been ‘held’ a certain way by the courts does not mean it is correct.
Take, for example, Ex Post Facto law; the Constitution specifically bars it and it bars it twice: on the federal level and on the state level and it is an UNQUALIFIED prohibition that the Constitution places thereon. However, the Supreme court in the 1798 case Calder v. Bull held that the Constitutional prohibition applied only to CRIMINAL law.
The Congress has made use of this decision to pass Ex Post Facto tax-laws which they claim are “administrative” or “regulatory,” yet violations of these laws are pursued by the IRS in CRIMINAL courts.
So then, are these laws criminal? if so, then these laws are invalid as per the USSC’s declaration that the prohibition against Ex Post Facto laws applies to criminal laws.
Or are they not criminal? in that case, why does the IRS pursue people in Criminal courts?
did i ask about the ‘overwhelming majority’ or the tool that spends waaaay to much time defending criminals with badges, rather than adhering to his sworn oath ???
scour the police scanners, the newspapers and local news for SWAT deployment. Gang bangers aren't hard to find. Most of the upper level or OGs have parole officers and have to check in. Now how hard is it to figure out who is holding the drugs, whonis holding the money , who is running the girls and who is a foot soldier and has possession of weapons. Fail a drug screen and you are off parole. Associating with known felons- parole violated, in possesion of a firearm - parole violated. But not many of those case's have seen the light of the courts.
mr statist is prolly ready for shift change tho, unless hes gettin holiday pay plus OT...
Actually, Roe v. Wade could conceivably be Treason, and not the whiny I don't like these guy's politics 'treason,' but the actual Constitutionally defined Treason.
First, let us reiterate what the Constitution defines as treason: "Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."
Second, let us cite the Second and Tenth Amendments:
Amendment II.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Amendment X.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Now, the second amendment makes mention of the militia, this is not defined anywhere in the Constitution, but the tenth amendment states that the people and the states retain all powers not delegated to the federal government; since the Constitution does not define the content of the militia then it is reasonably the states or the people that define the militia. And that supposition proves correct, my state constitution defines the state's militia as "all able-bodied male citizens between the ages of eighteen and forty-five, except such as are exempt by laws of the United States or of this state," and most states have similar definitions in their own Constitutions.
According to the data on National Right to Life [Org] there have been 28,511,400 abortions from `73 to `92 [making them of militia age]... however we need to 'exempt' the female portion of this number, we could use the ballpatk 50/50-split,m but empirically the rates here in the west are closer to 53/47 in favor of male so we will multiply by .53 truncating the result to an integer, this results in: 15,111,042.
Therefore, we can say that the militia has been deprived of more than 15 million persons DIRECTLY DUE to the US Supreme Court. How can a fifteen-million person deprivation of militia personnel be anything OTHER than an aid and comfort to the enemies of America? Hell, if any foreign power were to kill 15 million Americans there certainly SHOULD be war. Why should we sit back and let the Supreme Court do to us what we would refuse from a foreign power?
Don't look at me to be defending these mass-murdering bastards anytime soon, especially as the USSC has within its power to revisit and repudiate Roe v. Wade.
wish i had the desire/energy to research and lay things out like that...
>dang i love some of yer deep ‘egghead’ replies...8^}
LOL - Thank you.
>wish i had the desire/energy to research and lay things out like that...
This one wasn’t much; I just typed in “number of abortions in the US between 1973 and 1992” to google and pulled up three pages; the first was NRL.org’s which had all the data I needed so I copied `73 to `92 into my spreadsheet and summed them up [and then another search for the more exact gender probability] and multiplied the result accordingly.
I look forward in seeing how he’ll reply to it; it should be hard to defend those sorts of numbers, especially as we dissallowed the “I was only following orders” to be used by Nazi underlings — how much more should we hold the USSC to account for the millions that its orders have killed?
I can't speak for others and who they have accused of treason but when I call Bill Clinton a traitor I'm not whining about his politics. I'm talking about manipulating the system to facilitate giving the ChiComs ICBM guidance system technology and MIRVed warhead technology which we absolutely do not have any defense for no matter what anyone says about our missile defense projects. Or these other examples of treason...
"This war is lost!" - Senator Harry Reid"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children." - Senator John F'n Kerry
"Shamefully, we now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management: U.S. management." - Senator Ted Kennedy
"We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." - Senator Barack 0bama
"If I read this to you and did not tell you that it was an FBI agent describing what Americans had done to prisoners in their control, you would most certainly believe this must have been done by Nazis, Soviets in their gulags or some mad regime — Pol Pot or others — that had no concern for human beings," - Senator Dick Durbin
"We've got to ask, why is this man (Osama bin Laden) so popular around the world? Why are people so supportive of him in many countries that are riddled with poverty?" Murray said... that bin Laden has been "out in these countries for decades, building schools, building roads, building infrastructure, building day care facilities, building health care facilities, and the people are extremely grateful. We haven't done that." - Senator Patty Murray
In the context of wartime I consider those statements to be straightforward unambiguous instances of treason, as defined by the Constitution, as well.
"And there is no reason, Bob, that young American soldiers need to be going into the homes of Iraqis in the dead of night terrorizing kids and children." - Senator John F'n Kerry
Certainly overdramatic, BUT there is a [half-]point that he does have about US soldiers bursting into homes; Ron Paul's suggested alternative to the Global War On Terror as retaliation against America's terrorist enemies was to make use of Letters of Marque and Reprisal. That would have been MUCH less costly and could conceivably have cut out virtually all the raids Americans did on Iraqi homes while still retaliating. (And let's be honest, a home-raid is certainly terrifying to the inhabitants be it conducted by US military or US police officers.)
"This war is lost!" - Senator Harry Reid
Being a bit of a cynic myself I shouldn't "cast the first stone" at Reid for being a doomsayer... besides, there are plenty other things I can despise him for.
I would, however, like to suggest to you John Murtha; consider that on national television he condemned, as guilty of murder, marines acting in a war-zone without ANY trial or investigation. In so doing Murtha validated the claims of [some of] the terrorists we were/are fighting AND acted outside his authority as a legislator -- even if he DID have investigative/judicial-power to declare guilt or innocence he would be COMPLETELY violating the 5th and 6th Amendments WRT to the marines. -- THAT is what I would call treason.
{And Clinton's selling of out defense secrets to the Chinese, that too.}
Yep. We disagree.
My achin' ass. Complete Barbara Streisand.
Along with fellow students, I was stopped several times
a block away from the college shuttle bus’ last stop, c.
11 p.m. This was near some apartment blocks with
a wide range, shall we say of residents. I later learned
that the officer who did this was making sure he would
be able to go off duty when his shift was over; he would
stop patently unsuspicious persons for about 15” until
quitting time. This sort of de facto small scale intrusion,
tolerated by the cititzenry and brass, I think, was
tiny opening into larger violations.
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.