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 ...
“Acceptable losses” of freedom and liberty have given us the BATFE and TSA...
I do not think that was a good trade at all.
Thank you.
You aren't Rambo. You alone do not have the training, firepower, or ability to take on a barricaded individual or group of people holding your family hostage in a house. It's pretty obvious that you aren't grounded in reality here. You know that you are caught hiding behind absurdity, and now you are trying to shift the question.
BTW: Why did you ignore the other scenario? Should the police have to knock and announce their presence when doing so will cause the terrorist to set off the nuclear device?
I simply do not believe that it is either reasonable or moral to allow the police to break into ones house. Period.
So you would allow terrorists to hold hostages, create explosive devices and do other such things?
So were the framers of the Constitution also wrong, considering that a warrant explicitly gives the one holding the warrant the authority to break and enter into a home if entry is refused?
Do you realize when you quote Bible verses, that you need to do so with a specific purpose? Throwing up a bunch of random cut and pastes without explanation of what your purpose is, is quite silly. Further, you should also know the difference between moral/judicial/dietary/ceremonial law in the Bible. This distinction is one recognized both in Scripture and by every major orthodox creed and confession. The moral law is forever binding on all of mankind, but the judicial laws for the governing of Israel and the dietary/ceremonial laws of the past are no longer binding on us. If you want to hold that they are, then the entire government of the United States, including the Constitution, is improper.
I never claimed I was.
You alone do not have the training,
And do you know what training I have had?
firepower,
Do you know what weapons I have, or have access to?
or ability to take on a barricaded individual or group of people holding your family hostage in a house.
And you would deny that to anyone even-if it was a singular individual, in your own home [which you would likely know better than he].
It's pretty obvious that you aren't grounded in reality here. You know that you are caught hiding behind absurdity, and now you are trying to shift the question.
Actually, I am making a point that is very much grounded in reality; do you, AS A PERSON, have the right to defend your family and/or property? Is that right independent of the government? If not, then in what ways is it mutated?
I am not asking "is it smart?" or "do the odds favor you?"... I am asking about the right itself.
Look, it's this simple, a warrant gives the person holding it the right to break and enter into a home, if after announcing their presence, they are refused entry. Further, the no-knock warrants while generally unreasonable, are permitted in very limited circumstances. Finally, your whole contention regarding Plummer, John Bad Elk, and the State of New Mexico law is flatly without merit.
You are free to do as you like, and ultimately you will have to make your own decisions, just be aware that what you read on the internet, and what notions might flow through your head, are not representative of the actual state of the law, and any decisions that you thus make should keep this fact in mind.
Have the last word. Godspeed.
Like I said, there are siege-tactics available if ONLY compliance & apprehension were the exclusive issue. Regarding the Constitution's framers, I do not have to agree that everything therein is moral to accept it as law; as I said when making my statement I believe that the breaking into another's house is immoral, period.
So you would allow terrorists to hold hostages, create explosive devices and do other such things?
Have you ever heard of something called a militia? I believe that the whole community, armed for combat, is the appropriate response for those 'such things.'
From your postings I discern that you would deny that right to the people, "because the courts have ruled..." it to be illegal, even though the Declaration of Independence states that the people have such a right -- even to the point of throwing off the government -- and the Constitution via the Second Amendment supports this with the phrase "being necessary to the security of a free state."
You, sir, propose a very un-free state wherein the authorities, such as Law Enforcement Officers*, have immunity from all law and are therefore neither accountable nor punishable.
*and Legislators; John Murtha was granted immunity by the court from his slanderous condemnation of the Haditha Marines.
I don’t sell meth (or any other drugs for that matter) but I do live in a rough neighborhood.
Why? Because someone dared to have a different opinion than you on the internet? Because I pointed out that the law doesn't read the way that people might wish it would read?
And the best that you have is "Marxist" and "Statist"? Both contentions are laughable. Marxists have been attacking the police since the 1950s. If you actually were a police officer at one point, you would have known that. Can you point to anything "Statist" in what I've said here? Nope. I've been quite adamant that no-knock warrants need to be curtailed, and limited to very specific situations.
My responses were directed at the insane babble such as the "Plummer" and "John Bad Elk" nonsense.
You see, there is a difference between "Liberty" and "License". I love the former, I hate the latter, and so did the framers.
Here is how Liberty and License were defined at the time of the Framers:
LIB'ERTY, n. [L. libertas, from liber, free.]
1. Freedom from restraint, in a general sense, and applicable to the body, or to the will or mind. The body is at liberty, when not confined; the will or mind is at liberty, when not checked or controlled. A man enjoys liberty, when no physical force operates to restrain his actions or volitions.
2. Natural liberty, consists in the power of acting as one thinks fit, without any restraint or control, except from the laws of nature. It is a state of exemption from the control of others, and from positive laws and the institutions of social life. This liberty is abridged by the establishment of government.
3. Civil liberty, is the liberty of men in a state of society, or natural liberty, so far only abridged and restrained, as is necessary and expedient for the safety and interest of the society, state or nation. A restraint of natural liberty, not necessary or expedient for the public, is tyranny or oppression. civil liberty is an exemption from the arbitrary will of others, which exemption is secured by established laws, which restrain every man from injuring or controlling another. Hence the restraints of law are essential to civil liberty.
The liberty of one depends not so much on the removal of all restraint from him, as on the due restraint upon the liberty of others.
In this sentence, the latter word liberty denotes natural liberty.
4. Political liberty, is sometimes used as synonymous with civil liberty. But it more properly designates the liberty of a nation, the freedom of a nation or state from all unjust abridgment of its rights and independence by another nation. Hence we often speak of the political liberties of Europe, or the nations of Europe.
5. Religious liberty, is the free right of adopting and enjoying opinions on religious subjects, and of worshiping the Supreme Being according to the dictates of conscience, without external control.
6. Liberty, in metaphysics, as opposed to necessity, is the power of an agent to do or forbear any particular action, according to the determination or thought of the mind, by which either is preferred to the other.
Freedom of the will; exemption from compulsion or restraint in willing or volition.
7. Privilege; exemption; immunity enjoyed by prescription or by grant; with a plural. Thus we speak of the liberties of the commercial cities of Europe.
8. Leave; permission granted. The witness obtained liberty to leave the court.
9. A space in which one is permitted to pass without restraint, and beyond which he may not lawfully pass; with a plural; as the liberties of a prison.
10. Freedom of action or speech beyond the ordinary bounds of civility or decorum. Females should repel all improper liberties.
To take the liberty to do or say any thing, to use freedom not specially granted.
To set at liberty, to deliver from confinement; to release from restraint.
To be at liberty, to be free from restraint.
Liberty of the press, is freedom from any restriction on the power to publish books; the free power of publishing what one pleases, subject only to punishment for abusing the privilege, or publishing what is mischievous to the public or injurious to individuals.
LI'CENSE, n. [L. licentia, from liceo, to be permitted.]
1. Leave; permission; authority or liberty given to do or forbear any act. A license may be verbal or written; when written, the paper containing the authority is called a license. A man is not permitted to retail spirituous liquors till he has obtained a license.
2. Excess of liberty; exorbitant freedom; freedom abused, or used in contempt of law or decorum.
License they mean, when they cry liberty.
------------------------------------
The framers believed in ordered Liberty, based on the principles put into place by Almighty God, not libertine anarchy.
As Edmund Burke put it: "Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains on their own appetites... Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon the will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters."
Everything I said in this thread is backed up by fact. You might not like it, but it is reality. To go on like petulant child after reading an internet opinion does nothing but show your lack of ability to engage in reasoned discussion.
Unlike the libertines who inhabit these threads, I oppose the homosexual agenda, abortion on demand, open borders, weakening our national defense, sexual immorality, perversion, divorce, and a host of other societal ills that have got this nation in the State that it is in today.
Have you ever read the libertarian party platform? It supports abortion, the redefinition of marriage, the destruction of our culture, sexual immorality, a breakdown of the family, the homosexual agenda, open borders, and smoking dope.
That isn't freedom. It's license. Any society that embraces the above will collapse.
Libertarians (who tend to hate cops because they want to engage in perversion) do not pursue liberty, they pursue license. Don't try to claim the label Conservative and attack labels to others, when it's clear that you are anything but.
BTW: You don’t know me. You don’t know my ideology or where I stand on the issues. To come on here, mid-thread, throw out a profanity laced tirade without any basis whatsoever is the epitome of intellectual laziness.
What happened to logic and reason? If there is something wrong in what I posted, I’d gladly listen to you point it out with logic and reason. Trying to silence someone who dares to disagree with you on something is something that Statists and Marxists do, something that you are ironically claiming to me.
If you really want to know someone, ask. I bet we have more in common rather than in disagreement.
I’ve been in the military, law enforcement, and practice law. I’ve opposed the homosexual agenda and abortion on demand my entire life. I’ve fought the open borders crowd, worked to advance the 2nd Amendment, and I’ve pointed out that no-knock raids need to be curtailed and have been abused.
I also cannot stand intellectual laziness. People who make bumper sticker sound-bytes instead of looking at the inner workings of an issue. There were people on this thread making absolutist comments, where the TEXT of the Constitution doesn’t support such statements. They were making arrogant pronouncements of the law, without any legal basis for such pronouncements. Further, they were advancing a marxist and libertine agenda that is designed to break down the social order of our nation.
Do you think its coincidental that liberals always attack the military and police? Why? If you have been a law enforcement officer, you would definitely have experienced it. So why do you think that the media, hollyweird and their allies are so intent on destroying the image of the police?
Why was the breakdown of the Police and Military listed among the Communist Goals of the 1960s?
Sir, I’m not a marxist, and I don’t appreciate you insulting me as such. If you want to know where I stand on some things, why not ask?
Can you back up your claims with logic and reason? Or can you only throw about Ad Hominem attacks? Were the founders Statists? Is the 4th Amendment Statist? Is the Constitution Statist?
Show me, with logic and reason, what is Statist about anything that I said.
Funny, I don’t believe you know any of the people who you told what they like or love. You should not then mind being insulted yourself.
Intellectual laziness, is demonstrated by your responses or lack thereof throughout this thread.
You might be funny if not so pathetic.
I never claimed to. I responded to assertions about the law that are patently incorrect.
Perhaps you can answer, why have marxists and communists been attacking the military and police since the 1950s? Why do you think that the media and liberals want to destroy the image of police and paint them as gestapo?
Why do you think the marxists want to destroy the military through the homosexual agenda?
What is the purpose behind attacking the military and the police?
Apparently you can’t read either. I already answered your question. More than once.
So obviously, you can’t do anything but act like a petulant child.
OUTSTANDING post, Dick. Thank you for it!!!
SF
DC Wright
Would you be so kind as to point out exactly WHERE in the Constitution the authority for the Supremes to “interpret” the Constitution is enumerated?
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.