Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
OT: How do they go door to door?
25 views
Skip to first unread message
popinjay999
Apr 19, 2013, 2:10:17 PM4/19/13
to
Is that what they're doing? Going door to door with EVERY house?
Going in with their police dogs? Do they get a blanket warrant that
applies to everyone? Do they need a warrant? How do they do that,
legally? Any lawyers or experts on this group that can explain this
to me?
And what if someone has cats?
Going in with their police dogs? Do they get a blanket warrant that
applies to everyone? Do they need a warrant? How do they do that,
legally? Any lawyers or experts on this group that can explain this
to me?
And what if someone has cats?
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 2:32:30 PM4/19/13
to
something suspicious, see if the person who answers is nervous or
signals for help. They'll try to get permission to enter if they sense
the need. To they extent they may commit a prima facie Fourth Amendment
violation in trying to apprehend the bomber, they'll rely on the exigent
circumstances exception to justify their behavior.
If your cat gets eaten, and you turn out to be completely innocent,
they'll probably buy you a new one.
popinjay999
Apr 19, 2013, 2:44:44 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19, 11:32 am, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> They don't go in everyone's house. They do a door-knock, look for
> something suspicious, see if the person who answers is nervous or
> signals for help. They'll try to get permission to enter if they sense
> the need. To they extent they may commit a prima facie Fourth Amendment
> violation in trying to apprehend the bomber, they'll rely on the exigent
> circumstances exception to justify their behavior.
>
What the fuck is an exigent circumstance? Is that in the Constitution?
>
> They don't go in everyone's house. They do a door-knock, look for
> something suspicious, see if the person who answers is nervous or
> signals for help. They'll try to get permission to enter if they sense
> the need. To they extent they may commit a prima facie Fourth Amendment
> violation in trying to apprehend the bomber, they'll rely on the exigent
> circumstances exception to justify their behavior.
>
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 2:51:05 PM4/19/13
to
subject to perfunctory change.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 2:49:28 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19 2013 11:32 AM, BillB wrote:
> On 19/04/2013 11:10 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> > Is that what they're doing? Going door to door with EVERY house?
> > Going in with their police dogs? Do they get a blanket warrant that
> > applies to everyone? Do they need a warrant? How do they do that,
> > legally? Any lawyers or experts on this group that can explain this
> > to me?
> >
> > And what if someone has cats?
>
> They don't go in everyone's house. They do a door-knock, look for
> something suspicious, see if the person who answers is nervous or
> signals for help. They'll try to get permission to enter if they sense
> the need. To they extent they may commit a prima facie Fourth Amendment
> violation in trying to apprehend the bomber, they'll rely on the exigent
> circumstances exception to justify their behavior.
Thanks for checking in with your latest 30 second answer.
> On 19/04/2013 11:10 AM, popinjay999 wrote:
> > Is that what they're doing? Going door to door with EVERY house?
> > Going in with their police dogs? Do they get a blanket warrant that
> > applies to everyone? Do they need a warrant? How do they do that,
> > legally? Any lawyers or experts on this group that can explain this
> > to me?
> >
> > And what if someone has cats?
>
> They don't go in everyone's house. They do a door-knock, look for
> something suspicious, see if the person who answers is nervous or
> signals for help. They'll try to get permission to enter if they sense
> the need. To they extent they may commit a prima facie Fourth Amendment
> violation in trying to apprehend the bomber, they'll rely on the exigent
> circumstances exception to justify their behavior.
Will in New Haven
Apr 19, 2013, 3:20:39 PM4/19/13
to
are illegal but I think most people WOULD consent under the
circumstances. That the circumstances might be used to try to excuse
the authorities if the home-owner did not consent is likely and it
would probably fly, although it shouldn't.
I can speak with more knowledge about the cat. A well-trained police
dog will not bother a cat or, in fact, another dog, while on the job.
Obviously there are exceptions but they are much rarer than rogue
police officers.
--
Will in New Haven
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 3:45:35 PM4/19/13
to
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/09-1272.pdf
>Is that in the Constitution?
popinjay999
Apr 19, 2013, 3:55:55 PM4/19/13
to
and there is no smell of marijuana, and no flushing sounds coming from
the bathroom, why can't I just tell them I'd rather they didn't come
in because my house is a little messy right now?
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 3:53:47 PM4/19/13
to
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 4:02:42 PM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 12:55 PM, popinjay999 wrote:
> If I live in Boston, and they come to my house, and I open the door,
> and there is no smell of marijuana, and no flushing sounds coming from
> the bathroom, why can't I just tell them I'd rather they didn't come
> in because my house is a little messy right now?
You can. You have every right to tell them that. That's the First
> If I live in Boston, and they come to my house, and I open the door,
> and there is no smell of marijuana, and no flushing sounds coming from
> the bathroom, why can't I just tell them I'd rather they didn't come
> in because my house is a little messy right now?
Amendment. But if they feel they have reasonable suspicion that you're
hiding a fleeing terrorist and cop killer in your house, they'll just
brush you aside.
Just do what the nice officers tell you, k?
Will in New Haven
Apr 19, 2013, 4:17:16 PM4/19/13
to
ironic that he is taking this tone, except that he is looking at it
from the PoV of the property owner while he is normally for giving the
police complete licence in their treatment or mistreatment of ordinary
citizens, especially poor ones.
It is ironic also that you are an even bigger fasisctic dirt-bag than
he is.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 4:14:01 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19 2013 12:45 PM, BillB wrote:
> >Is that in the Constitution?
>
> Yes, it's in the largest and most important part (the unwritten part).
I nominate this for the dimmest statement made at RGP this week under the
> >Is that in the Constitution?
>
> Yes, it's in the largest and most important part (the unwritten part).
guise of knowledgeability.
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 4:20:10 PM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 1:17 PM, Will in New Haven wrote:
> It is ironic also that you are an even bigger fasisctic ..
Avoid using words you don't understand (or can't spell, for that matter).
> It is ironic also that you are an even bigger fasisctic ..
Avoid using words you don't understand (or can't spell, for that matter).
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 4:21:13 PM4/19/13
to
Will in New Haven
Apr 19, 2013, 4:24:46 PM4/19/13
to
promulgate that "unwritten" part of the constitution that will let the
state pound its citizens into the dirt and get called what you are,
spelled correctly or not.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 4:26:02 PM4/19/13
to
I forgive you for the way you play cards.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 4:28:33 PM4/19/13
to
spastic fascist, sort of a spascist.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 4:42:12 PM4/19/13
to
fascist.
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 4:43:48 PM4/19/13
to
place. Those reasonable limits (the almost infinitely expansive
unwritten part) are litigated in courts. Hard to believe an adult of
your age is so ignorant of your own law. I suppose many are, but really,
most junior high school students understand this. The existence of valid
exigent circumstances for a search are nothing new or controversial.
VegasJerry
Apr 19, 2013, 5:13:02 PM4/19/13
to
On Friday, April 19, 2013 11:10:17 AM UTC-7, popinjay999 wrote:
.
.> Is that what they're doing? Going door to door with EVERY house?
Would you expect them to skip every other house? Or do you think they should skip every third house? How about like you suggest at airports: "If they look innocent, let them go?"
What I want to see is a few of the cop haters here go door to door. You know, our big-brave RGPers. Here we have a kid who just saw his worthless brother get shot and run over; and now he's probably wearing a bomb and just waiting for some cop to confront. But our RGP cowards know better how to handle this than the cops would, right? GO GET THEM RGP Cop Wannabes.
> Going in with their police dogs?
Not if they don't have a scent.
> Do they get a blanket warrant that applies to everyone?
They don't need one.
> Do they need a warrant?
No.
> How do they do that, legally?
Ask permission first. Then if they believe a burglary or felony is in progress, they go in.
> Any lawyers or experts on this group that can explain this to me?
Just did.
> And what if someone has cats?
So what?
"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here. We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)
.
.> Is that what they're doing? Going door to door with EVERY house?
Would you expect them to skip every other house? Or do you think they should skip every third house? How about like you suggest at airports: "If they look innocent, let them go?"
What I want to see is a few of the cop haters here go door to door. You know, our big-brave RGPers. Here we have a kid who just saw his worthless brother get shot and run over; and now he's probably wearing a bomb and just waiting for some cop to confront. But our RGP cowards know better how to handle this than the cops would, right? GO GET THEM RGP Cop Wannabes.
> Going in with their police dogs?
> Do they get a blanket warrant that applies to everyone?
> Do they need a warrant?
> How do they do that, legally?
> Any lawyers or experts on this group that can explain this to me?
> And what if someone has cats?
"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here. We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)
Schmedley
Apr 19, 2013, 5:09:59 PM4/19/13
to
search with a warrant is pretty much considered reasonable on its face,
and other searches have to meet the reasonable requirement to be
considered "exceptions" to a warrant requirement. So there is a whole
list of exceptions including consent to search, search of a car, and so
on. "Exigent circumstances" is one of these, when police have a
reasonable basis that life, limb, or property is at immediate risk, they
do not have to wait around for a warrant.
Here. they are looking for a person, and presumably have an arrest
warrant. It is "exigent" since the guy has been tossing hand grenades
around, killing cops and others, and is presumably armed and capable of
continuing the mayhem.
Further, they are looking for a guy and presumably e have an arrest
warrant. It is clear the cops can enter a building to serve a lawful
arrest warrant is they have a reasonable basis to suspect he is there. If
the police think the guy is in your house, they can break down the door to
look for him. And when they find your meth lab in the basement, you are
screwed because they had a right to be there. Or they can secure the
premises, apply for a warrant, and serve it with the same result. Either
way any contraband found implicating you in a crime is coming in.
If they have a reasonable belief a bad guy is in a grid, they can go door
to door searching. It is just an extension of the principle. They are
probably not going to clear every room of every house, but there is no
legal prohibition against it.
And remember, the guy has no fourth amendment protection when he is hiding
out in a building where he has no right to be. If the police are intent
on finding him, they will simply blow through the door and ignore any
evidence of other crimes they see. Then the city pays for a new door, and
you better get your meth lab out of town fast cause you are on a list at
that point.
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 5:17:38 PM4/19/13
to
Travel A
Apr 19, 2013, 6:14:59 PM4/19/13
to
Also, the multi-block area where the search has been focused-on is in
"lock-down." You also have a Constitutional right to "freedom of
movement" but, obviously, not in this situation.
The police can and obviously should restrict all movement. They're even
telling people in the most intensive areas that they can't leave their
house until the restriction is lifted in that part of Watertown,
Massachusetts.
So, no, under these circumstances, you can't just take your cat for a
walk "just to see what's going on" without subject to being stopped,
searched and questioned, and probably a gun point.
Have to say, they did a great job in closing-in on the terrorists and
were obviously prepared for another possible flare-up incident from the
terrorists.
"lock-down." You also have a Constitutional right to "freedom of
movement" but, obviously, not in this situation.
The police can and obviously should restrict all movement. They're even
telling people in the most intensive areas that they can't leave their
house until the restriction is lifted in that part of Watertown,
Massachusetts.
So, no, under these circumstances, you can't just take your cat for a
walk "just to see what's going on" without subject to being stopped,
searched and questioned, and probably a gun point.
Have to say, they did a great job in closing-in on the terrorists and
were obviously prepared for another possible flare-up incident from the
terrorists.
O-PGManager
Apr 19, 2013, 7:06:51 PM4/19/13
to
the suspect alive and trying him in a court would be a preferable
resolution.
>
> It is ironic also that you are an even bigger fasisctic dirt-bag than
> he is.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator Emeritus (2009-2011)
O-PGManager
Apr 19, 2013, 7:10:41 PM4/19/13
to
this line. Is there any case law on "grid searches" warranting room by
room searches? My prominent 4th amendment professor never mentioned any.
> >
> > And remember, the guy has no fourth amendment protection when he is hiding
> > out in a building where he has no right to be. If the police are intent
> > on finding him, they will simply blow through the door and ignore any
> > evidence of other crimes they see. Then the city pays for a new door, and
> > you better get your meth lab out of town fast cause you are on a list at
> > that point.
>
> Ya, what he said ^ Classy post.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 8:30:00 PM4/19/13
to
was fundamentally based on. You're denying that's an ill thought out
statement?
popinjay999
Apr 19, 2013, 8:36:56 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19, 1:17 pm, Will in New Haven
like giving police complete license to abuse handicapped people. Cops
detaining handicapped people and putting their billy club in one wheel
of their wheelchair so that when they try to leave they go around in
circles, that always cracks me up.
>
> Given Paul's frequent defense of high-handed police officers it is
> ironic that he is taking this tone, except that he is looking at it
> from the PoV of the property owner while he is normally for giving the
> police complete licence in their treatment or mistreatment of ordinary
> citizens, especially poor ones.
>
Yes, of course. And don't forget handicapped people, I especially
> Given Paul's frequent defense of high-handed police officers it is
> ironic that he is taking this tone, except that he is looking at it
> from the PoV of the property owner while he is normally for giving the
> police complete licence in their treatment or mistreatment of ordinary
> citizens, especially poor ones.
>
like giving police complete license to abuse handicapped people. Cops
detaining handicapped people and putting their billy club in one wheel
of their wheelchair so that when they try to leave they go around in
circles, that always cracks me up.
risky biz
Apr 19, 2013, 8:38:59 PM4/19/13
to
Amendment is more important than the Fourth Amendment. That's something
you said.
BillB
Apr 19, 2013, 8:49:27 PM4/19/13
to
On 19/04/2013 5:38 PM, risky biz wrote:
> It's classy because it didn't say that the interpretation of the Fourth
> Amendment is more important than the Fourth Amendment. That's something
> you said.
lol...man, you really are dumb. susan-dumb
> It's classy because it didn't say that the interpretation of the Fourth
> Amendment is more important than the Fourth Amendment. That's something
> you said.
brattt
Apr 19, 2013, 9:05:11 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19 2013 7:49 PM, BillB wrote:
> lol...man, you really are dumb. Bill Cosby-dumb
FYP
---------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 15 2013 4:47 PM, BillB wrote
I lied about susan
On Mar 20 2013 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Try checking out North Dakota's new law. Women can't even get birth
control pulls.
Jerry wrote on: /Dec 18 2012
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.
> lol...man, you really are dumb. Bill Cosby-dumb
FYP
---------------------------------------------------------
On Apr 15 2013 4:47 PM, BillB wrote
I lied about susan
On Mar 20 2013 2:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Try checking out North Dakota's new law. Women can't even get birth
control pulls.
Jerry wrote on: /Dec 18 2012
I'm willing to allow police to be the only people allowed to be armed, and
to give them the power to stop and search anybody at any time, and to get
warrants to search any home. I want the penalty of owning or carrying a
weapon to be life in prison. And I don't want any further discussion on
that. The time has come.
Schmedley
Apr 19, 2013, 11:51:53 PM4/19/13
to
On Apr 19 2013 5:17 PM, BillB wrote:
> On 19/04/2013 2:09 PM, Schmedley wrote:
>
>
> Ya, what he said ^ Classy post.
Well, you get what you pay for. Police can enter the SUSPECTS house for
>
>
> Ya, what he said ^ Classy post.
the limited purpose of arrest if they reasonably believe he is in there.
Otherwise, it is a warrant or one of the other exceptions. Real world
advise: if they are looking for a mad bomber, consent to a search unless
you want a world of shit for the rest of the span of the universe.
Randy Hudson
Apr 20, 2013, 11:48:34 AM4/20/13
to
In article <hgv84ax...@news.ezprovider.com>,
Volokh discussed the searches, including this point, on his blog:
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/19/house-to-house-searches-and-the-fourth-amendment/
http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/19/house-to-house-searches-and-the-fourth-amendment/
Mossingen
Apr 20, 2013, 12:04:11 PM4/20/13
to
"Randy Hudson" wrote in message news:kkudci$fmf$1...@reader1.panix.com...
I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
search homes to look for him.
Mossingen
Apr 20, 2013, 12:06:01 PM4/20/13
to
"Schmedley" wrote in message news:pvf94ax...@news.ezprovider.com...
>Police can enter the SUSPECTS house for the limited purpose of arrest if
>they reasonably believe he is in there.
Schmedley
Apr 20, 2013, 4:29:53 PM4/20/13
to
serious offense, the property is the suspect's, and there is a reasonable
belief he is home at the time. The entry is limited to the arrest, and
probably a protective sweep. Once the guy is secured they need a warrant
for any full search.
BillB
Apr 20, 2013, 4:53:24 PM4/20/13
to
On 20/04/2013 9:04 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes,
> the bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent
> circumstances...
> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes,
> the bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent
No, it doesn't, but exigent circumstances are based on the totality of
the circumstances, which are of course unique to each case. It's hard to
get more unusual, or critical, than the circumstances here. In this case
you have an at least arguable ongoing hot pursuit (which is one of the
recognized examples of an exigent circumstance), you have the suspect
contained in a relatively tiny geographical area -- a neighborhood (or
so they believed), he is a bona fide terrorist, there is an honest and
reasonable belief that he could be wearing a so-called "suicide vest",
he has exploded bombs in public already, killing several and seriously
wounding scores more, he has killed a policeman and shot another in
separate incidents, he has shown a willingness to carjack and kidnap
civilian hostages as a means to escape, he has engaged in a high-speed
vehicle chase during which he indiscriminately fired weapons and threw
bombs out the window, he has shut down an entire city (one economist
citing a cost of $350 million/day), and he is one of the most wanted
suspects and the subject of one of the biggest manhunts in recent decades.
Bottom line, this suspect poses an EXTREME risk to PUBLIC safety, one
rarely, if ever, seen in that jurisdiction before.
I think as the "grid" becomes bigger, a judge is going to have more and
more problem with it, but a particular street or a few blocks...?? I say
the court okays it.
Hearing an interview on CNN with some neighborhood residents, I was
surprised to learn that it sounded like they did actually do
room-to-room searches in each house on one street, but I imagine they
had permission for most or all of those searches, making the issue moot.
TruthSeeker
Apr 20, 2013, 6:23:39 PM4/20/13
to
On 20/4/13 10:04 AM, Mossingen wrote:
> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
> search homes to look for him.
So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
> search homes to look for him.
his capture was unconstitutional?
I do expect that any evidence of a crime that the cops saw while
searching for this guy would not be admissible in court, or allowed to
be used to make an arrest or an investigation.
--
TruthSeeker
"On the Internet, no one knows you're a dog."
~M~
Apr 20, 2013, 6:48:11 PM4/20/13
to
"BillB" wrote in message news:kksa4d$2rq$1...@dont-email.me...
>Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the place.
No it's not.
--
"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because
I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of
Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered,
and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course
of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1787
>Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the place.
--
"I agree to this Constitution with all its faults, if they are such; because
I think a general Government necessary for us, and there is no form of
Government but what may be a blessing to the people if well administered,
and believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a course
of years, and can only end in Despotism, as other forms have done before it,
when the people shall become so corrupted as to need despotic Government,
being incapable of any other."
- Benjamin Franklin, 1787
BillB
Apr 20, 2013, 6:49:54 PM4/20/13
to
On 20/04/2013 3:48 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kksa4d$2rq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>> place.
>
> No it's not.
Ignorance noted.
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kksa4d$2rq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>> place.
>
> No it's not.
~M~
Apr 20, 2013, 7:10:14 PM4/20/13
to
"TruthSeeker" wrote in message
news:fNudnRQB9YfxiO7M...@giganews.com...
>So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
>his capture was unconstitutional?
The 4th Amendment wasn't written to protect a terrorist from being arrested.
It was written to protect people security in the privacy of their homes. The
idea and intent was to keep authorities from violating your privacy, not to
allow them to violate your privacy and then let the courts sort it out
later.
>I do expect that any evidence of a crime that the cops saw while
>searching for this guy would not be admissible in court, or allowed to
>be used to make an arrest or an investigation.
Well, I guess that makes it OK then.
news:fNudnRQB9YfxiO7M...@giganews.com...
>So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
>his capture was unconstitutional?
It was written to protect people security in the privacy of their homes. The
idea and intent was to keep authorities from violating your privacy, not to
allow them to violate your privacy and then let the courts sort it out
later.
>I do expect that any evidence of a crime that the cops saw while
>searching for this guy would not be admissible in court, or allowed to
>be used to make an arrest or an investigation.
~M~
Apr 20, 2013, 7:11:30 PM4/20/13
to
"BillB" wrote in message news:kkv5sn$d8t$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>> place.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
>Ignorance noted.
Then name one.
>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>> place.
>>
>> No it's not.
>
>Ignorance noted.
BillB
Apr 20, 2013, 7:28:01 PM4/20/13
to
On 20/04/2013 4:11 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kkv5sn$d8t$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> Ignorance noted.
>
> Then name one.
Try this:
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kkv5sn$d8t$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>>> place.
>>>
>>> No it's not.
>>
>> Ignorance noted.
>
> Then name one.
http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/limits-on-rights/
~M~
Apr 20, 2013, 8:22:05 PM4/20/13
to
"BillB" wrote in message news:kkv845$pdv$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Ignorance noted.
>>
>> Then name one.
>
>Try this:
>
>http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/limits-on-rights/
That doesn't describe any limits (reasonable or otherwise) placed on the
Constitution.
If you are having trouble coming up with a reasonable limit that can be
placed in the Constitution, maybe you want to start by naming someone that
can place a limit on the Constitution instead, and go from there.
>>>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>>>> place.
>>>>
>>>> No it's not.
>>>
>>> Ignorance noted.
>>
>> Then name one.
>
>Try this:
>
>http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/limits-on-rights/
Constitution.
If you are having trouble coming up with a reasonable limit that can be
placed in the Constitution, maybe you want to start by naming someone that
can place a limit on the Constitution instead, and go from there.
BillB
Apr 20, 2013, 9:03:21 PM4/20/13
to
On 20/04/2013 5:22 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kkv845$pdv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>>>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance noted.
>>>
>>> Then name one.
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/limits-on-rights/
>>
>
> That doesn't describe any limits (reasonable or otherwise) placed on the
> Constitution.
Yes, it does. I can't help you.
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kkv845$pdv$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
>>>>>> Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
>>>>>> place.
>>>>>
>>>>> No it's not.
>>>>
>>>> Ignorance noted.
>>>
>>> Then name one.
>>
>> Try this:
>>
>> http://billofrightsinstitute.org/resources/educator-resources/americapedia/americapedia-constitution/limits-on-rights/
>>
>
> That doesn't describe any limits (reasonable or otherwise) placed on the
> Constitution.
TruthSeeker
Apr 21, 2013, 10:57:28 AM4/21/13
to
On 20/4/13 5:10 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> "TruthSeeker" wrote in message
> news:fNudnRQB9YfxiO7M...@giganews.com...
>
>> So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
>> his capture was unconstitutional?
>
> The 4th Amendment wasn't written to protect a terrorist from being arrested.
> It was written to protect people security in the privacy of their homes. The
> idea and intent was to keep authorities from violating your privacy, not to
> allow them to violate your privacy and then let the courts sort it out
> later.
You didn't answer the question.
> "TruthSeeker" wrote in message
> news:fNudnRQB9YfxiO7M...@giganews.com...
>
>> So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
>> his capture was unconstitutional?
>
> The 4th Amendment wasn't written to protect a terrorist from being arrested.
> It was written to protect people security in the privacy of their homes. The
> idea and intent was to keep authorities from violating your privacy, not to
> allow them to violate your privacy and then let the courts sort it out
> later.
I pretty much agree with your position that it was unconstitutional for
the cops to force people out of their houses and search the houses for
the suspect, without a warrant (note: IANAL). I also know that our
governments have been doing unconstitutional things in what they
consider emergencies since the 1790's. There were the Alien and
Sedition acts, Lincoln jailing Congressmen to keep them from casting
votes in Congress, the internment of thousands of innocent civilians in
concentration camps (without due process) in 1942 to name a few.
I'll paraphrase a famous comment from WWII: "How many divisions does
the Pope have?" The SCOTUS has no power to enforce its rulings, it
depends on the Executive Branch for that. Part of the separation of
powers. The government does not have de jure powers to override or
ignore the Constitution, but in some circumstances they have the de
facto power (in that they will not be challenged on it in court).
So I'll try again: what do you think should be done about this case?
Do you believe that even if a suit is brought, that the police will or
should be punished in some way? How?
VegasJerry
Apr 21, 2013, 11:30:36 AM4/21/13
to
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 9:04:11 AM UTC-7, Mossingen wrote:
> "Randy Hudson" wrote in message news:kkudci$fmf$1...@reader1.panix.com...
.
> "Randy Hudson" wrote in message news:kkudci$fmf$1...@reader1.panix.com...
.> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
> search homes to look for him.
No, they would not.
> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
> search homes to look for him.
For instance: When we (cops) were rounding up illegal Mexicans from businesses; we knew where their families were. We went to the house where we knew they were hiding. (Oddly enough, it was one of our cop's sisters that hid them). We knocked and asked if there were illegals there. She said no. We asked to enter; she said no. We entered, found the illegals and apprehended them. Because we did not have a warrant, we could not arrest the home owner. We deported the illigals.
Jerry 'n Vegas
"I am a racist. I hate niggers and spics and slants. I was born here. We are not Africans. They stand on the corner and they can't speak English. I can't even talk the way these people talk: These knuckleheads say, Why you ain't, Where you is, What he drive, Where he stay, Where he work, Who you be... These lower economic people are not holding up their end. These People put their clothes on backward, their hats on backward, pants down around the crack. With names like Shaniqua, Taliqua and Mohammed and all of that crap. The same applies to 99 percent of all the black Americans. What part of Africa did they come from? We have got to take the neighborhoods back. I should have included kikes and lesbos too. Put all of them are in jail."
-- Susan the right-wing racist (April 11, 10:50 am)
VegasJerry
Apr 21, 2013, 11:34:14 AM4/21/13
to
On Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:48:11 PM UTC-7, ~M~ wrote:
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kksa4d$2rq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> >Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the place.
.
> "BillB" wrote in message news:kksa4d$2rq$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>
> >Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the place.
.> No it's not.
Heh. His incorrect reply is as short as his name.
It doesn't take this idiot long to prove his ignorance.
VegasJerry
Apr 21, 2013, 11:37:22 AM4/21/13
to
On Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:57:28 AM UTC-7, TruthSeeker wrote:
> On 20/4/13 5:10 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> > "TruthSeeker" wrote in message
> > news:fNudnRQB9YfxiO7M...@giganews.com...
> >
> >> So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
> >> his capture was unconstitutional?
> >
> > The 4th Amendment wasn't written to protect a terrorist from being arrested.
> > It was written to protect people security in the privacy of their homes. The
> > idea and intent was to keep authorities from violating your privacy, not to
> > allow them to violate your privacy and then let the courts sort it out
> > later.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
.
> On 20/4/13 5:10 PM, ~M~ wrote:
> > "TruthSeeker" wrote in message
> > news:fNudnRQB9YfxiO7M...@giganews.com...
> >
> >> So do you think some judge is going to order the cops to let him go, as
> >> his capture was unconstitutional?
> >
> > The 4th Amendment wasn't written to protect a terrorist from being arrested.
> > It was written to protect people security in the privacy of their homes. The
> > idea and intent was to keep authorities from violating your privacy, not to
> > allow them to violate your privacy and then let the courts sort it out
> > later.
>
> You didn't answer the question.
.> I pretty much agree with your position that it was unconstitutional for
> the cops to force people out of their houses and search the houses for
> the suspect, without a warrant
And you would continue your record of being wrong.
> the suspect, without a warrant
brattt
Apr 21, 2013, 12:20:00 PM4/21/13
to
On Apr 20 2013 11:04 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
> search homes to look for him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8#!
>
> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
> search homes to look for him.
BillB
Apr 21, 2013, 3:12:09 PM4/21/13
to
On 21/04/2013 9:20 AM, brattt wrote:
> On Apr 20 2013 11:04 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
>> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
>> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
>> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
>> search homes to look for him.
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8#!
I love it when Obama flexes his muscles like that. It sends a thrill up
> On Apr 20 2013 11:04 AM, Mossingen wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm betting "grid searches" would be found to be unconstitutional. Yes, the
>> bomber was dangerous, but that doesn't make it an exigent circumstances, it
>> just makes it dangerous for the police to try and apprehend him, wherever he
>> is. He was basically just a fleeing felon, and they would need a warrant to
>> search homes to look for him.
>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2LrbsUVSVl8#!
my leg.
Travel A
Apr 21, 2013, 7:39:29 PM4/21/13
to
"BillB" wrote in message news:kkv5sn$d8t$1...@dont-email.me...
Yes, the Constitution is subject to reasonable limits, all over the
place.
No it's not.
BillB blithered:
Ignorance noted.
"M" wrote:
Then name one.
I wrote:
M's right, BillB's wrong: The Constitution isn't (BillB quote):
"...subject to reasonable limits, all over the place."
No there isn't. There's just people (liberals, blatantly) applying the
Constitution inappropriately and "conveniently" all over the place.
Prosecution for falsely yelling "fire!" in a crowded theater, causing
the loss of lives, isn't a "reasonable limit" on the Constitutional
restriction on the government from infringing on citizens' right to free
speech, it's not a free speech issue at all. It's a public safety issue.
Prosecution for murder with a gun isn't a "reasonable limit"on the 2nd
amendment, it's a public safety issue and has nothing to do with the
Constitution.
You can't just go around conveniently applying the Constitution to
everything and think that you're making an intelligent argument.
0 new messages