Posted on 07/04/2015 1:13:35 PM PDT by Okimi2200
Is that the Romanian Cieszeow (sp?). (”Hey - you dropped your hat.”)
You get an A+ for being a FIRST CLASS condescending PLICK!
+1
They placed themselves over those they governed for their own power
and greed. Filth!
In the end they got what they deserved, no wasted time, sentence and execution.
Their audacity and hubris showed right up to their death and the world is a better place.
"recourse to the method"
Nicolae and Elena Ceaucescu. #RomanianTermLimits.
After reading about this incident for two days, I do not agree with your premise.
They ‘could’ have knocked on the man’s door and politely asked to watch the house next door from a bedroom window. Their show of force was wrong, and illegal.
You can post a tome but I will *not* change my mind at this point.
Please read the case, not the alarmist headline.
Cops did ask, he refused. His quote was “I don’t want to become involved.”
P.S. It’s not a tome. It’s 2d semester Constitutional Law 102.
Doesn’t matter. If he refused, he was within his right. It is his home. The police caused the problem, not the man.
Sorry for the previous partial answer. From the case:
““On the morning of July 10, 2011, officers from the Henderson Police Department responded to a domestic violence call at a neighbor’s residence. … [Police] told [Mitchell] police needed to occupy his home in order to gain a ‘tactical advantage’ against the occupant of the neighboring house [who was engaged in ongoing domestic abuse]. Anthony Mitchell told the officer that he did not want to become involved and that he did not want police to enter his residence.”
Not wanting to be involved is not an excuse, in reason or at law, for possibly allowing a person (the physically abused) to continue to be abused.
By the way, courts do not like stupid arguments. Plaintiffs’ lawyer tired to bring a 3d Amendment case, quartering soldiers in a home. (please see #44)
This sends a strong signal to the judge that either you don’t have much of a case, so you are overreaching in the hope the city will settle, or you haven’t done your homework, or in the 1 in a million chance you prevail, you get your name in the law books.
No, I’m sorry, that is not the law.
Please see #99.
P.S., don’t feel bad. People are often mistaken about that Constitutional principle.
By the way, under current Constitutional law, if a woman called 911 and reported that she was being raped and held against her will, and LEOs felt she could be further harmed, she would not even need to give (or know) a specific address for LEOs to execute a warrant-less search.
If their called ID indicated a specific address of the calling telephone, that’s enough.
I’ve already told you I won’t change my mind.
Fine, just as long as you understand that you no longer support the Constitution.
Please do not take the above as personal. It’s just reality.
I would argue that when you order a product (or otherwise agree to have something shipped or mailed to you) you have de facto given permission (unless instructed otherwise) for the mailman, UPS driver or Fedex driver to enter your property for the *sole* purpose of dropping off your package, getting your signature (if necessary) and then leaving.
Thus, an invitation is implied in that case.
When abuses like this are dismissed as “old news”, the abuses will continue.
Cases like this are landmarks, test cases, and should never be forgotten or downplayed.
agreed. I’ve ordered nothing from the police tho...
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.