Breaking and Entering.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Tempest is right. You can be arrested in Canada for speaking your mind. It happens. The Orwellian Civil Rights Commission. You long ago surrendered freedom of speech in Canada. Maybe it has not sunk in yet.

Pretty simple really..If you have no 2A ...the equivalent of 1A goes away.

I am not a real 2A fanatic..but it does give one pause to connect the dots.
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125
Tempest is right. You can be arrested in Canada for speaking your mind. It happens. The Orwellian Civil Rights Commission. You long ago surrendered freedom of speech in Canada. Maybe it has not sunk in yet.
You either have it or you don't. Limitations mean you don't have it!!!!!


This has degenerated to such a level of silliness (and one that is totally off topic) that the only thing to say to each of those statements is NO and WRONG. You don't get it and I'm tired of trying to explain it to you.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: rshaw125


Tempest- I think you won that one. That's as close as Spyder7 will come to admitting it.


As an interested observer, I would not agree with this statement. While I am completely ignorant about the laws concerning free speech in Canada, Spyder has been pretty eloquent addressing the issue. Don't forget, our right of free speech here in the U.S. is not absolute.

Besides the trite example of shouting "Fire" in a crowded movie theater, just try exercising your right of free speech in an airport with the clowns from TSA. Try exercising your right of free speech on just about any college campus if it doesn't match lock step with current politically correct thinking. Try exercising it in regards to disparaging women, minorities or handicapped. I think we are all familiar with the repercussions of slander and libel. Just because we live with some reasonable restrictions (well, except for the college campus one), doesn't mean we have lost our rights.

We still have pretty good protections under the 2nd Amendment, even though some seem to forget their 11th grade civics class where it used to be taught the first 10 Amendments are the individual's Bill of Rights. There are restrictions on felons and the insane not possessing firearms. Even in an open carry state, you can't carry on school grounds and in Federal buildings.

We have limitations on a lot of the rights enumerated to us under the U.S. Constitution. I can’t completely agree with the rshaw's statement that limitations on our rights mean we've lost them; however, getting back to the topic of this thread, the Supreme Court has appeared to shred the Constitutional restrictions against illegal search and seizure by allowing the police to bust into an individuals domicile without a warrant. The 4th Amendment states: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." How the court can reconcile police breaking into houses without warrants is beyond me. Maybe if we made the police wear red coats, people would react in outrage.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
How the court can reconcile police breaking into houses without warrants is beyond me. Maybe if we made the police wear red coats, people would react in outrage.


Its a State Court..which can be trumped by SCOTUS if they didn't get it right. AND moreover you have the right to sue.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ
How the court can reconcile police breaking into houses without warrants is beyond me. Maybe if we made the police wear red coats, people would react in outrage.


Its a State Court..which can be trumped by SCOTUS if they didn't get it right. AND moreover you have the right to sue.


Good point! I read too fast and missed the "of Indiana" part following Supreme Court in the initial post.
33.gif
 
Originally Posted By: ArrestMeRedZ

Good point! I read too fast and missed the "of Indiana" part following Supreme Court in the initial post.
33.gif


No problem..I make a career of misreading.
 
Originally Posted By: morris
you are laboring under the misconception that you own your house.

I want to see who is able to take mine away from me.
 
That is a VIOLATION of the US Constitution plain and simple .

4th Amendment WILL NOT ALLOW THIS!

They can make whatever laws they want BUT if it violates the US law of the land..US Constitution that law(s) are null and void.= Uneforcable on any US citizen.
 
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: morris
you are laboring under the misconception that you own your house.

I want to see who is able to take mine away from me.


Don't pay your property taxes and see who comes and takes that what is "yours."
 
Originally Posted By: JoeWGauss
That is a VIOLATION of the US Constitution plain and simple .

4th Amendment WILL NOT ALLOW THIS!

They can make whatever laws they want BUT if it violates the US law of the land..US Constitution that law(s) are null and void.= Uneforcable on any US citizen.


So it didn't happen then?

Don't forget, anybody can do anything, even if they must not do it.
 
Some interesting snips from the article linked further up thread:

Quote:
...George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg, the decision means that "whenever the police have suspicion that there is drug activity going on in a particular apartment or house and they knock and they hear movement inside and any reasonable delay in opening the door, they are going to break it in."

...

These and other criminal law experts said that under Monday's ruling, police could go door to door in an apartment complex where there is known drug activity, and if they smell marijuana, bang on the door and if they hear noises that suggest the destruction of incriminating evidence, they can break in and seize evidence in plain sight.


-Spyder
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Spyder7
Some interesting snips from the article linked further up thread:

Quote:
...George Washington University law professor Stephen Saltzburg, the decision means that "whenever the police have suspicion that there is drug activity going on in a particular apartment or house and they knock and they hear movement inside and any reasonable delay in opening the door, they are going to break it in."

...

These and other criminal law experts said that under Monday's ruling, police could go door to door in an apartment complex where there is known drug activity, and if they smell marijuana, bang on the door and if they hear noises that suggest the destruction of incriminating evidence, they can break in and seize evidence in plain sight.


-Spyder

Police departments won't risk trillions of $$$ in lawsuits.

Theory is one thing practicality/real world is another.
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Trav
I wonder if they will give the cops new black uniforms with some nice boots?


Down here, they call that the Police' new "paramilitary uniform".
 
Originally Posted By: Al

Police departments won't risk trillions of $$$ in lawsuits.

Theory is one thing practicality/real world is another.


If the law of the land says they have the legal the right to do just this, then there is no 'risk' of anything. You are free to sue, but if they are acting within these new legal boundaries - which are pretty broad - your lawsuit is going nowhere. Even if a desperate enough attorney agreed to take it on, its still going to get tossed long before it ever sees a jury. So it costs them nothing and they risk nothing.

Further more, due to 'drug lord' laws granting sweeping rights to asset forfeiture (which can be seized before the case even sees criminal court), I'd call it a trillion dollar money maker. No risk involved on their part at all, and everything to gain.

That is as real world as it gets. And a very useful tool for broke municipalities and states to convert such seized assets into cash to pay the bills.

-Spyder
 
Last edited:
As an addendum to the above, to contrast your idealistic fantasy view with real world data, I'd draw your attention to "Policing for Profit: The Abuse of Civil Asset Forfeiture." And if you elect to read it, then keep in mind it was written before these new police powers were granted. Some relevant quotes:

Quote:

Under state and federal civil asset forfeiture laws, law enforcement agencies can seize and keep property suspected of involvement in criminal activity. Unlike criminal asset forfeiture, with civil forfeiture, a property owner need not be found guilty of a crime—or even charged—to permanently lose her cash, car, home or other property.


Quote:

In most states and under federal law, law enforcement can keep some or all of the proceeds from civil forfeitures. This incentive has led to concern that civil forfeiture encourages policing for profit, as agencies pursue forfeitures to boost their budgets at the expense of other policing priorities.


Quote:

...in most places, owners bear the burden of establishing their innocence. In other words, with civil forfeiture, property owners are effectively guilty until proven innocent.


Quote:

Once your property is taken, the government will—perhaps—send you a notice letting you know that the burden is on you to try to get your property back. If you do not respond within the right time frame and in the proper manner, law enforcement automatically gets to keep your seized property. But even if you do try to win back your property in court, you will have to wait several months, if not more than a year, to get a hearing. At that hearing, you will find yourself in a legal maze where the
government holds most of the advantages, and you carry most of the burdens.


And lastly, but most importantly:

Quote:


Eighty percent of persons whose property was seized by the federal government for forfeiture were never even charged with a crime.


They go on to discuss, at length, how LE agencies at state and federal levels are not only dependent on this income, but actually include forecasted proceeds into their budgets.

Now combine the profit motive they illustrate in black and white in their 128 page paper, with increased scope to conduct paramilitary type raids where illicit activity is suspected and a warrant no longer required, and tell me again who's living in theory land.

http://www.ij.org/images/pdf_folder/other_pubs/assetforfeituretoemail.pdf
 
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Al
Originally Posted By: morris
you are laboring under the misconception that you own your house.

I want to see who is able to take mine away from me.


Your state or federal government in the event you are mistakenly identified as being involved in a criminal enterprise, or if an informer looking to make a quick buck points the finger at you, or if someone with a score to settle or who you wittingly ticked off decides to use the state in such a manner to get even.

Your guilt or innocence in the manner is then irrelevant. After its seized, and you've waited the required period, and navigated your way through the required legal channels, you then have an opportunity to prove your innocence in hopes of getting back what you call "yours."

Now they no longer even need a warrant to take it. Just probable cause to break down your door.

-Spyder
 
Originally Posted By: Spyder7


If the law of the land says they have the legal the right to do just this, then there is no 'risk' of anything.

Again you are missing that it is a State and has not cleared SCOTUS.

Personally I think you worry about about something that has a .00000000000000000000000001% chance of affecting you. I assume you wear a crash helmet when you drive. Much more relevant to saving your butt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top