Posted on 04/05/2002 8:59:46 PM PST by freespeech1
Nah, I still would have, so just keep moving along you self-deluded phony.
Word has it that Frank Zito is quite a patron of fine arts, maybe you can compose a little bagpipe ditty or write him a poem to show your love and support during this difficult time.
Still, the fact remains that even an obnoxious slob like Zito, or even you Arne, enjoys the same 4th amendment protections as anyone else, and a warrant is still required to break down the man's door, now matter how flimsy and tho' the winds may blow through it.
Any magistrate would have rubberstamped a warrant for the police, had they been threatened, but because they chose to ignore the law, a poor cop is dead, and a poor slob of a man is on murder charges.
Cops are not above the law.
Recently I was on patrol in a high crime area. A detective, who had been watching a drug dealer from down the street watched me approach in my marked unit. When I got near the drug dealer, who was standing on the corner, the detective told me to 'check that guy out, he's been flagging down cars.' So, I stop my cruiser and tell the guy I want to talk to him. He takes off running, while reaching in his waistband and throwing something, that was not found afterward. The guy (17 year old) runs inside a house next door. I catch him inside. The people that live there say they don't know him.
I charged the kid with obstructing and burglary. We go to juvenile court. The judge says it's not a crime to run from the police and finds the kid not guilty of obstructing. But he does find him guilty of the burglary.
Recently I found out the judge told the prosecutor in the case that I was a "cowboy" for chasing this poor youth.
So, a detective sees a kid engaging in selling drugs in a known drug area, he runs, gets caught, goes to court and now I'm a "cowboy" for doing my job.
I should'a been a brain surgeon.
You must be new and didn't realize that an unwritten rule in Free Republic is that the first person to call America Nazi Germany or Stalinist Russia loses.
While I would probably not disagree with the judge's decision (since the thrown object was never found, there's no way of telling whether it would have constituted evidence of anything illegal), his comment is way out of line. That the person was willing to commit burglary in an effort to avoid talking to a cop would suggest strongly that he was up to no good. Whether or not such evidence would constitute probable cause for anything [other than the burglary arrest], it should at minimum be recognized informally.
What's unfortunate is that thanks to jury brainwashing it's often easier to convict law-abiding people of unintentional 'crimes', even felonies, than to convict real criminals. After all, since the law-abiding people aren't seeking to hide anything (having no reason to do so) it's much easier to gather adequate evidence against them. And if the judge can convince the jury that abbreviating the name of one's state of residence on a 4473 constitutes a failure to properly fill one out, it will be easy to come up with all the 'evidence' needed.
BTW, I'd like to see an attourney general announce that police officers who go after the law-abiding rather than criminals will have their cases thrown out. To my knowledge, at the national level Ashcroft has never said such a thing; at the Illinois level, the current attourney general spent considerable effort on a 'sting' of law-abiding gun dealers, and the Republican nominee sought, as state's attourney, to prosecute someone for unlawful use of a weapon because he was carrying a pistol in the manner specified by statute (in a case, within a backpack, unloaded, and while possessing a FOID card).
- Did you know Adolf had a irrational hate for women, arne? Well documented. At times, he ranted, - just like you, -- about them being tramps & sluts. Strange fella, adolf, -- He also did a lot of personal violence threats, but to all accounts, never raised a hand to another man. - Just to the sluts & tramps. -- Like you.
"Nazi" was first used in paragraph 13 of Post #1. It was used subsequently in posts 36, 37, 48, 78, 86, 127, 149, 151, 190, and 222 ... before I used it. I didn't even make the top ten ... sigh.
The point being made by many posters is that there is a fairly narrow, but well-defined boundary between proper police protocols, and police abuse. When the police (be they local, state or federal) overstep their bounds (for instance, at Waco and at Ruby Ridge) you see the spector of something not too different from the authoritarian European states of the 1930's and 1940's. Whether you call them jack-booted nazi thugs, or jack-booted fascist thugs makes little difference.
I responded to a comment that suggested in some locale the police would just "take care of the problem" (or something like that) - the suggestion being that they would not be bound by legal or Constitutional requirements ... they would be a law unto themselves. In my book, that's Nazi-ism. I hope I explained it a little bit better. I meant no personal offense.
-- But in any case arne, stop swaggering about FR like some demented litte dictator, and you won't be compared to one. -- Get it?
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.