Cops shot breaking and entering
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
talltom wrote:
>
> Well so far it looks as if the local cops that got shot were
> breaking and entering. They had no warrant, and broke down the door,
> the Moose tried to cover all evidence, get rid of reporters, etc.
>
> While I admit that there are some very limited cases in which
> cops can break in without a warrant, nothing has surfaced to
> give any basis for that assumption at this point. I rather suspect that
> after Mr. Moose gets through he'll attempt to docktor something up to
> fill the bill.
>
> Anyhow, According to the news the cops didn't identify themselves
> and weren't in uniform that knocked on the door either.
> Anybody see any good reason why the cops shouldn't have been shot?
The news report I read said they announced themselves and knocked,
but used a large rock to smash the door down. They had no warrant.
--
-- OFR --
DataRat
The Rapist wrote:
"They had no warrant."
The DataRat responds:
There are a number of contingencies when
no warrant is required for entry into private
premises. Not the least of which is exigent
circumstances.
DataRat
talltom
-Outlaw Frog Raper- wrote:
>
> talltom wrote:
Snip
>
> The news report I read said they announced themselves and knocked,
> but used a large rock to smash the door down. They had no warrant.
>
> --
> -- OFR --
Yeah, the latest I've heard is that 2 of 3 cops weren't in uniform,
and Shotzer and johnson have promulgated that the two had t-shirts
on with something to the effect that they were cops on them.
Reguardless of the t-shirt claims, if one is uniformed the identity
unknown argument pretty much goes out the window.
There was testimony this morning that the time interval between
the knock and the destruction was nearly nonexistant.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
I read that the first time they went to the house they got no answer.
That was 3am. When they returned at 11 am they knocked then bashed the
door down after they claimed to smell evidence being destroyed.( they
smelled pot burning) If it's legal to bash down a door when pot smell
is noticed, there should be thousands of door smashes daily.
--
-- OFR --
Joshua R. Poulson
DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
> There are a number of contingencies when
> no warrant is required for entry into private
> premises. Not the least of which is exigent
> circumstances.
True enough. It's called "probable cause". They had decent reason to
believe that the suspect was burning his supply of marijuana. However,
they did not take the proper precautions for their own safety before
performing a dynamic entry.
They should have waited for the warrant and a SWAT team trained in
dynamic entry. It's easy to determine of ashes are marijuana ashes. I
suspect they wanted to bust him for dealing rather than possession,
and the law assumes that a certain amount for possession is proof of
dealing, so they may have felt constrained for time.
Was it worth dying for?
DataRat
Josh wrote:
"Was it worth dying for?"
The DataRat comments:
Every time DataRat does a car stop for head lamp
out or no tail light, he risks the same thing. It's called
"law enforcement". And -ultimately- that is what
they died for, NOT marijuana.
DataRat
Tim C.
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
>Any questions of whether there should have been a warrant are
>secondary. They identified themselves and one of the officers was
>uniformed (the dead officer, I believe). It doesn't absolve the
>suspect of responsibility.
It doesn't absolve the officer of responsibility either.
--
Tim C. Technical Support
General Support: sup...@blarg.net Blarg! Online Services, Inc.
Voice: 425/401-9821 or 888/66-BLARG http://www.blarg.net
Mike Chapman
In article <uvhv2g...@informix.com>,
j...@informix.com (Joshua R. Poulson) writes:
> True enough. It's called "probable cause". They had decent reason to
> believe that the suspect was burning his supply of marijuana. However,
> they did not take the proper precautions for their own safety before
> performing a dynamic entry.
Is smelling marijuana smoke actually "probable cause" in Oregon? Possession
of marijuana (and burning it) is not a criminal act. They had, it seems,
no evidence that he was dealing.
And if they want to file murder charges, proving that he knew he was
shooting at cops would be pretty hard. A plea bargain seems likely
if he had felonious amounts of weed, and if there is not such evidence
against him, I'd expect civil cases in the other direction. We'll
have to see what the investigation yields - although how we reasonably
can set the police to investigating a police shootout I'm not sure.
Kevin Murphy
Kevin Murphy
On 29 Jan 1998 16:57:18 -0800, j...@informix.com (Joshua R. Poulson)
wrote:
>DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
>> There are a number of contingencies when
>> no warrant is required for entry into private
>> premises. Not the least of which is exigent
>> circumstances.
>
>True enough. It's called "probable cause". They had decent reason to
>believe that the suspect was burning his supply of marijuana. However,
>they did not take the proper precautions for their own safety before
>performing a dynamic entry.
>
>They should have waited for the warrant and a SWAT team trained in
>dynamic entry. It's easy to determine of ashes are marijuana ashes. I
>suspect they wanted to bust him for dealing rather than possession,
>and the law assumes that a certain amount for possession is proof of
>dealing, so they may have felt constrained for time.
>
>Was it worth dying for?
Nope. It was probably something they've done before with no problem
and didn't think this would be different. They got lax. Something I
can identify with. It's something I always think about after a call.
Kevin Murphy
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 03:04:52 GMT, mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman)
wrote:
>In article <uvhv2g...@informix.com>,
> j...@informix.com (Joshua R. Poulson) writes:
>> True enough. It's called "probable cause". They had decent reason to
>> believe that the suspect was burning his supply of marijuana. However,
>> they did not take the proper precautions for their own safety before
>> performing a dynamic entry.
>
>Is smelling marijuana smoke actually "probable cause" in Oregon? Possession
>of marijuana (and burning it) is not a criminal act. They had, it seems,
>no evidence that he was dealing.
>
>And if they want to file murder charges, proving that he knew he was
>shooting at cops would be pretty hard. A plea bargain seems likely
>if he had felonious amounts of weed, and if there is not such evidence
>against him, I'd expect civil cases in the other direction. We'll
>have to see what the investigation yields - although how we reasonably
>can set the police to investigating a police shootout I'm not sure.
Huh?
Possession of marijuana is not illegal in Oregon?
They didn't need evidence that he was dealing (they may have had it,
since I understand they paid more than one visit). All they needed was
enough to establish that he may have an illegal substance there (the
smell and whatever information brought them to his house) and the
possibility that he was in the process of destroying it.
I understand that they were uniformed and identified themselves. What
more is needed to establish their authority? He didn't exactly give
them time to show their ID cards before he opened up on them.
Kevin Murphy
On 29 Jan 1998 23:25:30 -0800, ti...@animal.blarg.net (Tim C.) wrote:
>>Any questions of whether there should have been a warrant are
>>secondary. They identified themselves and one of the officers was
>>uniformed (the dead officer, I believe). It doesn't absolve the
>>suspect of responsibility.
>
>
>It doesn't absolve the officer of responsibility either.
What sort of responsibility?
Criminally, the shooter is 100 percent responsible.
Civilly, a plaintiff would have to show that the officers did not act
within their guidelines and training. From what I've seen, they have.
Why is it hard to say that some should simply refrain from shooting at
the police?
dR.DavE
In <34D0ACBB...@home.com> DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
>The Rapist wrote:
>"They had no warrant."
>The DataRat responds:
>There are a number of contingencies when
>no warrant is required for entry into private
>premises. Not the least of which is exigent
>circumstances.
Which, to me, begs the question: Are these exceptions justified?
Apparently, this practice of "knock and talk" has a history of problems.
But aside from the practical, we should be more vigilant about the
procedure of warrants. It's our only mechanism to preserve a
Constitutional right, and we shouldn't dispose of it when it's
inconvenient.
--
**dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
dR.DavE
-Outlaw Frog Raper- <outl...@hotmail.com> writes:
>I read that the first time they went to the house they got no answer.
>That was 3am. When they returned at 11 am they knocked then bashed the
>door down after they claimed to smell evidence being destroyed.( they
>smelled pot burning) If it's legal to bash down a door when pot smell
>is noticed, there should be thousands of door smashes daily.
Shhhh!! Don't give them any ideas.
Mike Chapman
In article <34d4e214...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> Criminally, the shooter is 100 percent responsible.
Unless it can't be proven that he knew or reasonably should've known
he was shooting at police.
I can't hear what people are shouting outside of my *apartment*. At all.
I can hear that they are shouting, but the individual words... Not a chance.
> Civilly, a plaintiff would have to show that the officers did not act
> within their guidelines and training. From what I've seen, they have.
>
> Why is it hard to say that some should simply refrain from shooting at
> the police?
The police should refrain from *trying* to surprise people in their homes.
If there's some madman on the loose that's one thing, but creating that
situation over drugs (suspected or known outright) is just immoral.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
dR.DavE wrote:
>
> In <34D0ACBB...@home.com> DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
> >The Rapist wrote:
> >"They had no warrant."
>
> >The DataRat responds:
> >There are a number of contingencies when
> >no warrant is required for entry into private
> >premises. Not the least of which is exigent
> >circumstances.
>
> Which, to me, begs the question: Are these exceptions justified?
> Apparently, this practice of "knock and talk" has a history of problems.
> But aside from the practical, we should be more vigilant about the
> procedure of warrants. It's our only mechanism to preserve a
> Constitutional right, and we shouldn't dispose of it when it's
> inconvenient.
Do you think the founding fathers would have allowed King George's
thugs to knock and talk with them? I think that is what led to the
overthrow.
Simple question, What's more valuable, the preservation of some pot for
evidence, or the right of the people to be secure in their homes.
Soon it will be illegal to resist being killed.
> --
> **dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
> David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
> Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
--
-- OFR --
.
Joshua R. Poulson
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> Any questions of whether there should have been a warrant are
> secondary. They identified themselves and one of the officers was
> uniformed (the dead officer, I believe). It doesn't absolve the
> suspect of responsibility.
Police officers who weren't trained in dynamic entry attempted
one. Dynamic entry is extremely dangerous. That would lay some
responsibility on Chief Moose and Mayor Katz, I suspect.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Mike Chapman wrote:
>
> In article <34d3e11b...@news.concentric.net>,
> Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> > Huh?
> >
> > Possession of marijuana is not illegal in Oregon?
>
> a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
>
> > They didn't need evidence that he was dealing (they may have had it,
> > since I understand they paid more than one visit). All they needed was
> > enough to establish that he may have an illegal substance there (the
> > smell and whatever information brought them to his house) and the
> > possibility that he was in the process of destroying it.
> >
> > I understand that they were uniformed and identified themselves. What
> > more is needed to establish their authority? He didn't exactly give
> > them time to show their ID cards before he opened up on them.
>
> see them before he started shooting? Is a jacket that says police
> really enough? Are you saying that you should not be able to
> defend yourself from gangsters who dress like police, because clothing
> is what identifies police when they kick your door down?
>
> No sir, behaviour is what identifies police office to me. Police
> cars, with lights. Police in regular uniforms behaving in a manner
> appropriate for civil servants. Not shouting, swearing, kicking
> doors down, guns waving, without even a warrant in hand. Maybe they
> saw some cars in the driveway they really liked, who knows.
>
> These kind of tactics should be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for WARRANT service
> on VIOLENT criminals.
Absolutely. If the person in the house believed that the persons he
encountered were not acting lawfully he has every right to defend his
home.
If burglars wore police uniforms would it be illegal to resist them?
--
-- OFR --
.
.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Mike Chapman wrote:
> The police should refrain from *trying* to surprise people in their homes.
> If there's some madman on the loose that's one thing, but creating that
> situation over drugs (suspected or known outright) is just immoral.
Surprise attacks on gun owners is stupid.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Kevin Murphy wrote:
> To answer your questions. The occupants. No. Was the neighbor's dog in
> the house? Yes, he hit three of them, killing one. Yes. I hardly think
> he thought "gangsters" were invading his house. That line of defense
> can apply to any crook who shoots a cop.
Only if they shoot them in their home.
Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
to violate rights to enforce the law.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:11:13 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
> <outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >dR.DavE wrote:
> >>
> >> In <34D0ACBB...@home.com> DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
> >> >The Rapist wrote:
> >> >"They had no warrant."
> >> Which, to me, begs the question: Are these exceptions justified?
> >> Apparently, this practice of "knock and talk" has a history of problems.
> >> But aside from the practical, we should be more vigilant about the
> >> procedure of warrants. It's our only mechanism to preserve a
> >> Constitutional right, and we shouldn't dispose of it when it's
> >> inconvenient.
> >
> >
> >Do you think the founding fathers would have allowed King George's
> >thugs to knock and talk with them? I think that is what led to the
> >overthrow.
>
> Then they would have outlawed such through the Constitution, like they
> did for everything else that they had a gripe with.
They did, you just changed the meaning of English to suit your needs and
if you overstep yourself, it is later dealt with in court.
> Warrantless
> searches were never forbidden in the constitution, either.
Nor granted for pot.
> >Simple question, What's more valuable, the preservation of some pot for
> >evidence, or the right of the people to be secure in their homes.
> >Soon it will be illegal to resist being killed.
>
> Some in these groups have already declared it illegal for the police
> to resist being killed.
That's quite an interpretation of smashing your way into someone's home
without a warrant and expecting them to cooperate.
> >
> >> --
> >> **dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
> >> David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
> >> Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
--
-- OFR --
.
Keith
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:55:51 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
> <outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Absolutely. If the person in the house believed that the persons he
> >encountered were not acting lawfully he has every right to defend his
> >home.
> >If burglars wore police uniforms would it be illegal to resist them?
>
>
> What if the person in the house believed they were aliens from the
> planet Vulcan?
>
> The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
> identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform. Knocks
> out the self-defense issue.
Really? Are you saying that it's impossible for folks other
than police officers to dress up as police officers and shout
out that they are police officers?
Keith
Kevin Murphy wrote:
> >I can't hear what people are shouting outside of my *apartment*. At all.
> >I can hear that they are shouting, but the individual words... Not a chance.
>
> How many times have the police been outside your apartment shouting
> "Police. Search warrant!"?
I'm not sure what police activities with regards to Mr. Chapman
have to do with this discussion. Could you please enlighten me?
Besides, the police in this incident didn't shout "Police.
Search warrant!"
> >The police should refrain from *trying* to surprise people in their homes.
> >If there's some madman on the loose that's one thing, but creating that
> >situation over drugs (suspected or known outright) is just immoral.
>
> Immoral? Is murder immoral, too?
Yep. And your point is...?
Keith
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:59:54 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
> <outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Mike Chapman wrote:
> >
> >> The police should refrain from *trying* to surprise people in their homes.
> >> If there's some madman on the loose that's one thing, but creating that
> >> situation over drugs (suspected or known outright) is just immoral.
> >
> >
>
> ready to kill. Had they known, they would have chosen a different
> tact. So would have Custer.
I read in the Oregoian Online that they were fully aware of the
situation
and were performing a knock and talk on a fishing expedition since they
had no real evidence and he was their target. They went there looking
for
a reason to cleanse the neighborhood. They knew of his previous
encounters
with LV police and that he was armed.
Perhaps cops should try finding the crime first, then arresting the
perp.
Not picking the dirtbag and giving him the knock and talk, or the
"we had a 911 hang up from this address".
Some people won't be willing targets of your attempts to circumvent the
accepted practices that have been in place for years that respect
people's
rights.
Police have a legitimate function, but fishing expeditions at the
expense
of citizen's rights are not it.
What would happen if I went to your house a few times a month for a
knock
and talk just to keep an eye on you?
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> How many times have the police been outside your apartment shouting
> "Police. Search warrant!"?
The missing warrant is the issue we are discussing.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Kevin Murphy wrote:
> >
> >Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
> >to violate rights to enforce the law.
>
> Getting a warrant does not keep anyone safe. It'll only cause you to
> attack them on a different front.
But with a warrant. There is a difference.
Exigent circumstances is not a
> "loophole".
No, the practice of targetting the criminal, then finding a crime is.
If you have no evidence, take a hike. The only witness across the street
probably is the one that called the cops.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:24:17 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
>
> >> Then they would have outlawed such through the Constitution, like they
> >> did for everything else that they had a gripe with.
> >
> >They did, you just changed the meaning of English to suit your needs and
> >if you overstep yourself, it is later dealt with in court.
>
> I didn't alter or change anything in the constitution nor the English
> language. The Supreme Court applies the constitution to the law.
Not you, your profession. Law enforcement has been developing thousands
of new methods of getting away with as much as they can and leave us
taxpayers to pay the bill for their agressive behavior.
> You should see misc.activism.militia for some fanciful alterations.
Yeah, those Constitutionalists are creative, not cops.
> >> Warrantless
> >> searches were never forbidden in the constitution, either.
> >
> >Nor granted for pot.
>
> That's only the interpretation of one who claims to commit sexual
> assaults on amphibians.
Out of ammo? Time to attack the poster?
> >> >Simple question, What's more valuable, the preservation of some pot for
> >> >evidence, or the right of the people to be secure in their homes.
> >> >Soon it will be illegal to resist being killed.
> >>
> >> Some in these groups have already declared it illegal for the police
> >> to resist being killed.
> >
> >That's quite an interpretation of smashing your way into someone's home
> >without a warrant and expecting them to cooperate.
>
> I don't expect suspects to cooperate.
Or cops.
Mike Chapman
Kevin Murphy
>In article <34d4e214...@news.concentric.net>,
> Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
>> Criminally, the shooter is 100 percent responsible.
>
>Unless it can't be proven that he knew or reasonably should've known
>he was shooting at police.
>
>I can't hear what people are shouting outside of my *apartment*. At all.
>I can hear that they are shouting, but the individual words... Not a chance.
How many times have the police been outside your apartment shouting
"Police. Search warrant!"?
>
>> Civilly, a plaintiff would have to show that the officers did not act
>> within their guidelines and training. From what I've seen, they have.
>>
>> Why is it hard to say that some should simply refrain from shooting at
>> the police?
>
>The police should refrain from *trying* to surprise people in their homes.
>If there's some madman on the loose that's one thing, but creating that
>situation over drugs (suspected or known outright) is just immoral.
Immoral? Is murder immoral, too?
Kevin Murphy
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:06:01 GMT, mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman)
wrote:
>In article <34d3e11b...@news.concentric.net>,
> Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
>> Huh?
>>
>> Possession of marijuana is not illegal in Oregon?
>
>It's termed an "infraction", and is not, to my knowledge, grounds for
>a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
A legal infraction? How is there such a thing?
Speeding is not illegal in Oregon, either?
>> They didn't need evidence that he was dealing (they may have had it,
>> since I understand they paid more than one visit). All they needed was
>> enough to establish that he may have an illegal substance there (the
>> smell and whatever information brought them to his house) and the
>> possibility that he was in the process of destroying it.
>>
>> I understand that they were uniformed and identified themselves. What
>> more is needed to establish their authority? He didn't exactly give
>> them time to show their ID cards before he opened up on them.
>
>Identified themselves to whom? The wall? The neighbor's dog? Did he
>see them before he started shooting? Is a jacket that says police
>really enough? Are you saying that you should not be able to
>defend yourself from gangsters who dress like police, because clothing
>is what identifies police when they kick your door down?
To answer your questions. The occupants. No. Was the neighbor's dog in
the house? Yes, he hit three of them, killing one. Yes. I hardly think
he thought "gangsters" were invading his house. That line of defense
can apply to any crook who shoots a cop.
>
>No sir, behaviour is what identifies police office to me. Police
>cars, with lights. Police in regular uniforms behaving in a manner
>appropriate for civil servants. Not shouting, swearing, kicking
>doors down, guns waving, without even a warrant in hand. Maybe they
>saw some cars in the driveway they really liked, who knows.
They had uniforms. They shout to be heard. The murderer gave them no
chance to show a warrant. Why don't you just admit that a criminal
murdered an officer and find another case to trumpet?
>
>These kind of tactics should be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for WARRANT service
>on VIOLENT criminals.
Apparently, he was violent.
Kevin Murphy
>dR.DavE wrote:
>>
>> In <34D0ACBB...@home.com> DataRat <dat...@home.com> writes:
>> >The Rapist wrote:
>> >"They had no warrant."
>>
>> >The DataRat responds:
>> >There are a number of contingencies when
>> >no warrant is required for entry into private
>> >premises. Not the least of which is exigent
>> >circumstances.
>>
>> Which, to me, begs the question: Are these exceptions justified?
>> Apparently, this practice of "knock and talk" has a history of problems.
>> But aside from the practical, we should be more vigilant about the
>> procedure of warrants. It's our only mechanism to preserve a
>> Constitutional right, and we shouldn't dispose of it when it's
>> inconvenient.
>
>
>Do you think the founding fathers would have allowed King George's
>thugs to knock and talk with them? I think that is what led to the
>overthrow.
Then they would have outlawed such through the Constitution, like they
did for everything else that they had a gripe with. Warrantless
searches were never forbidden in the constitution, either.
>Simple question, What's more valuable, the preservation of some pot for
>evidence, or the right of the people to be secure in their homes.
>Soon it will be illegal to resist being killed.
Some in these groups have already declared it illegal for the police
to resist being killed.
>
>
Kevin Murphy
Kevin Murphy
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:59:54 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
<outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Mike Chapman wrote:
>
>> The police should refrain from *trying* to surprise people in their homes.
>> If there's some madman on the loose that's one thing, but creating that
>> situation over drugs (suspected or known outright) is just immoral.
>
>
Kevin Murphy
>Only if they shoot them in their home.
>
>Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
>to violate rights to enforce the law.
Getting a warrant does not keep anyone safe. It'll only cause you to
attack them on a different front. Exigent circumstances is not a
"loophole".
Kevin Murphy
>> Then they would have outlawed such through the Constitution, like they
>> did for everything else that they had a gripe with.
>
>They did, you just changed the meaning of English to suit your needs and
>if you overstep yourself, it is later dealt with in court.
I didn't alter or change anything in the constitution nor the English
language. The Supreme Court applies the constitution to the law.
You should see misc.activism.militia for some fanciful alterations.
>
>> Warrantless
>> searches were never forbidden in the constitution, either.
>
>Nor granted for pot.
That's only the interpretation of one who claims to commit sexual
assaults on amphibians.
>
>> >Simple question, What's more valuable, the preservation of some pot for
>> >evidence, or the right of the people to be secure in their homes.
>> >Soon it will be illegal to resist being killed.
>>
>> Some in these groups have already declared it illegal for the police
>> to resist being killed.
>
JRyder
One of my favorite bands is called M.D.C.
Million of Dead Cops!
One of their best songs is "Dead Cops Rock", a cover to the music of Presley's
"Jailhouse Rock". But their best song is called: "Dead Cops" and its on their
title album: _MDC_
Sing along with me :)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(chorus)
Dead cops
down on the street
givin the poor the heat
with their clubs and guns
doin it all for fun
big bad and blue
theyre in the Klan too
brutality is their sport
we'll pu em to the torch
(chorus)
rebel, rebel on the street
makeup on my face
stockings on my feet
all the straights asking me why
Im not a normal American guy
what makes America so straight
and me so bent?
(chorus)
call this the land of the Free
say its the home of the brave
you know they call me a queen
just another human being
your authority and power
has turned us sick and sour
and your justice is a lie
were gonna fight util you die
(chorus)
whatcha gonna do
the mafia in blue
huntin for queers
niggers and YOU
time for a switch
army of the rich
macho f#ckin slaves
we'll piss on your graves
(chorus)
--
Are you free?
Do you own your body? Can you prostitute yourself, sell your organs, or
medicate yourself? Do you own your labor? Can you work for any wage
you want, whatever hours you want, and keep the fruits of your sweat?
Do you own your possessions? Can the terms of your property ownership
be changed at any time, or for any reason? Can your property be taxed
without limitation?
Can you travel freely? Must you carry identification papers for you and your
property, submit to search without warrant, cause, or recourse?
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
at the other end: FREEDOM.
Mike Chapman
In article <34dc8c30...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevin Murphy <Kevi...@mail.concentric.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:59:54 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
><outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Surprise attacks on gun owners is stupid.
>
>Tragically, the officers did not know this person was a murderous ass,
>ready to kill. Had they known, they would have chosen a different
>tact. So would have Custer.
Er, Custer was the murderer. Legitimate authority finally caught
up with him.
Mike Chapman
In article <34d381b...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevin Murphy <Kevi...@mail.concentric.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 00:06:01 GMT, mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman)
>wrote:
>>a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
>
>A legal infraction? How is there such a thing?
>Speeding is not illegal in Oregon, either?
Yes, an infraction. Essentially, any violation of the law for which
there is only a fine, is not a misdemeanor, it's an "infraction" (or
"violation", these laws are a mess). I'm no legal expert, but it
is my impression and understanding that this class of laws does
not merit any kind of search or forced entry, merely a citation from
the officer who *witnessed* the infraction.
I was also under the impression that this was true in most places - something
that only merits a fine is not grounds to have your home or car
searched. Evidence of such a crime would likewise not be "probable
cause" for a forced entry.
If any of the or.politics lawjockeys have a better understanding
of the law, I welcome correction.
>To answer your questions. The occupants. No. Was the neighbor's dog in
>the house? Yes, he hit three of them, killing one. Yes. I hardly think
>he thought "gangsters" were invading his house. That line of defense
>can apply to any crook who shoots a cop.
Is he a crook? How do you know that he saw them and didn't shoot
at them by their noise? The news reports have indicated that
he *did* shoot through the door and wall, perhaps never seeing
his targets.
>They had uniforms. They shout to be heard. The murderer gave them no
>chance to show a warrant. Why don't you just admit that a criminal
>murdered an officer and find another case to trumpet?
Cuz I don't KNOW what happened, and unlike you, I don't assume
that every time a cop is killed, a murder has taken place.
Counselor
In article <EnMzH...@pwa.acusd.edu>, jlow...@acusd.edu (John Lowther)
wrote:
>Kevin Murphy (Kevi...@mail.concentric.net) wrote:
>
>: >
>: >It's termed an "infraction", and is not, to my knowledge, grounds for
>: >a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
>
>: A legal infraction? How is there such a thing?
>
Marijuana is listed as a Schedule I substance by the U.S. Goverment.
Reviewing the Oregon statutes briefly without delving into them , I
seem to notice that it is only a misdemeanor if the amount in possession
is under one ounce. Possession for sale/distribution or actual
distribution/sale are both still felonies.
Be careful of the comparison between speeding and other infractions...
There is really no comparison. The reason a search is generally not
allowed in speeding hypotheticals is not the same as the reason a
search is not allowed in other, different hypotheticals. The situations,
facts, and Constitutional precedents and authority are all different.
Typically, the general difference is that an infraction is only punishable
by a fine or other such administrative action. Usually incarceration is
not available in infractions. However, searches are still allowed under
the right circumstances, much as they are allowed for felonies and
misdemeanors.
Counselor
Mike Chapman
In article <6auun9$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
Counselor <counselo...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
>Reviewing the Oregon statutes briefly without delving into them , I
>seem to notice that it is only a misdemeanor if the amount in possession
>is under one ounce.
Correction: it is only an infraction. Maximum fine $1000.
katana@
>Wrong answer!
>
>What if the person in the house believed they were aliens from the
>planet Vulcan?
>
>The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
>identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform. Knocks
>out the self-defense issue.
He knew who they were, that's why he was burning his grow op in the
fireplace while they waited for the warrant. Exigent circumstances,
they entered, he wasn't done yet, he opened fire.
glpr...@sprintmail.com
In article <6au7cn$ksd$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
jryder...@cyberhighway.net (JRyder) wrote:
> One of my favorite bands is called M.D.C.
>
> Million of Dead Cops!
>
> One of their best songs is "Dead Cops Rock", a cover to the music of
Presley's
> "Jailhouse Rock". But their best song is called: "Dead Cops" and its on
their
> title album: _MDC_
>
> Sing along with me :)
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can join Steve Kangas on the bumper of the SERT vehicle, clothing optional.
Kevin Murphy
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:35:35 -0800, Keith <k...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>> The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
>> identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform. Knocks
>> out the self-defense issue.
> Really? Are you saying that it's impossible for folks other
> than police officers to dress up as police officers and shout
> out that they are police officers?
Now, do you realize that you can say that about any officer you meet?
I'm sorry if some may use this tact (actually, I've never heard of any
using a full uniform) but if this is to be a legitimate defense, then
you grant the right to shoot any officer on the street.
Kevin Murphy
On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:38:26 -0800, Keith <k...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>Kevin Murphy wrote:
>>
>> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 23:53:43 GMT, mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman)
>> wrote:
>
>> >I can't hear what people are shouting outside of my *apartment*. At all.
>> >I can hear that they are shouting, but the individual words... Not a chance.
>>
>> How many times have the police been outside your apartment shouting
>> "Police. Search warrant!"?
>
> I'm not sure what police activities with regards to Mr. Chapman
> have to do with this discussion. Could you please enlighten me?
>
> Besides, the police in this incident didn't shout "Police.
> Search warrant!"
The account I read said that they identified themselves but received
no response, according to witnesses.
Kevin Murphy
>> I didn't alter or change anything in the constitution nor the English
>> language. The Supreme Court applies the constitution to the law.
>
>Not you, your profession. Law enforcement has been developing thousands
>of new methods of getting away with as much as they can and leave us
>taxpayers to pay the bill for their agressive behavior.
Gee, if we're pretty much gettin g carte blanche, then why do we have
to read those stuprid rights forms or bother with search and arrest
warrants? Why do I even have to go to court?
>
>> You should see misc.activism.militia for some fanciful alterations.
>
>Yeah, those Constitutionalists are creative, not cops.
Ask them whether you're a sovereign citizen or a 14th Amendment
citizen.
>
>> >> Warrantless
>> >> searches were never forbidden in the constitution, either.
>> >
>> >Nor granted for pot.
>>
>> That's only the interpretation of one who claims to commit sexual
>> assaults on amphibians.
>
>Out of ammo? Time to attack the poster?
No sense of humor, eh?
>> >That's quite an interpretation of smashing your way into someone's home
>> >without a warrant and expecting them to cooperate.
>>
>> I don't expect suspects to cooperate.
>
>
>Or cops.
You'll hold cops acountable for their actions. Too bad you don't hold
suspects to the same standard.
Kevin Murphy
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 06:53:18 GMT, jlow...@acusd.edu (John Lowther)
wrote:
>Kevin Murphy (Kevi...@mail.concentric.net) wrote:
>
>: On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 19:55:51 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
>: <outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>: >Absolutely. If the person in the house believed that the persons he
>: >encountered were not acting lawfully he has every right to defend his
>: >home.
>: >If burglars wore police uniforms would it be illegal to resist them?
>
>: Wrong answer!
>
> This type of conclusory response advances no argument. The
>previous poster brought up a good point -- a reasonable belief on the part
>of the homeowner may be enough to allow a claim of self-defense. One does
>have the right to defend his or her castle.
Not under all circumstances. Is it reasonable to believe that all
officers who come to your door are burglars?
>
>
>
>: What if the person in the house believed they were aliens from the
>: planet Vulcan?
>
>
>
> A compelete non-sequitur. This nonsense warrants no response.
Really? I was told that the judgement was left to the person in the
house. What if he does believe that aliens are attacking him? Is he
allowed that belief and excused for killing anyone at the door?
>
>
>
>: The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
>: identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform. Knocks
>: out the self-defense issue.
>
>
> Again, totally conclusory. All the facts have not yet been
>developed and, even if the police had "identifying jackets," that fact
>alone does not ipso facto "knock[] out" a claim of self defense, as you
>incorrectly posit.
According to the news, they did and one had a full uniform. You're
allowing a defense that would permit killing any cop who stops a
person.
Kevin Murphy
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 07:01:05 GMT, jlow...@acusd.edu (John Lowther)
wrote:
>Kevin Murphy (Kevi...@mail.concentric.net) wrote:
>
>: >
>: >It's termed an "infraction", and is not, to my knowledge, grounds for
>: >a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
>
>: A legal infraction? How is there such a thing?
>
>
> Because the state legislature or town government deemed it so via
>statute or ordinance. States define crimes, and infractions are part and
>parcel of every vehicle code if the state government so rules.
How can you be handled accountable for something that's legal?
>
>
>: Speeding is not illegal in Oregon, either?
>
>
> "Illegal" and "infraction" are not mutually exclusive -- an
>infraction is one level of illegal act, much like misdemeanors and
>felonies, which, in some states, are either (a) expressly defined by the
>penal code, or (b) are determined based on proscribed prison terms for
>each offense.
So possesion of marijuana is illegal, unlike what a previous poster
said. It's just a lower grad offense and carries lighter penalties.
Bob Tiernan
On 30 Jan 1998, Joshua R. Poulson wrote:
> Police officers who weren't trained in dynamic entry attempted
> one. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Can we dispense with the gobbeldy-gook textbook terms?
It's called "Kicking a door down". I don't like using
terms devised by authoritarians, such as "collateral
damage" (dead babies) and "defending our country"
(invading banana republics).
Bob T.
Jon Beaver
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 21:16:31 -0500, -Outlaw Frog Raper-
><outl...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Only if they shoot them in their home.
>>
>>Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
>>to violate rights to enforce the law.
>
>Getting a warrant does not keep anyone safe. It'll only cause you to
>attack them on a different front. Exigent circumstances is not a
>"loophole".
>
It's the mother of all loopholes. The problem with substituting the
perceptions of a police officer for a warrant is that the citizen is
at the mercy of the officer's integrity -- presumably what the warrant
is supposed to protect against. Notice how "exigent circumstances" is
now the usual basis of a forced entry -- not a warrant? An exception
to the warrant requirement is only a "loophole" until it's revealed.
Then it becomes a super highway. (Sorry for the rhetoric, but I get a
little worked up about this issue.)
-Jon Beaver
Bob Tiernan
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Kevin Murphy wrote:
> The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
> identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform.
> Knocks out the self-defense issue.
Ever hear of the St, Valentine's Day Massacre (1929 Chicago)?
Seven gangsters (actually five gangsters, their on-call
auto mechanic, and an eye doctor who liked hanging around
gangsters) were confronted in their garage hangout by
two men dressed in *police uniforms*. They willingly
agreed to line up facing a wall to be frisked in what
they believed to be yet another annoying though harmless
visit by local police. While they were facing the wall,
two un-uniformed men then came in with Thompson sub-
machine guns and mowed them down.
Bob T.
Keith
Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:35:35 -0800, Keith <k...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>
> >> The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
> >> identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform. Knocks
> >> out the self-defense issue.
>
> > than police officers to dress up as police officers and shout
> > out that they are police officers?
>
> Now, do you realize that you can say that about any officer you meet?
> I'm sorry if some may use this tact (actually, I've never heard of any
> using a full uniform) but if this is to be a legitimate defense, then
> you grant the right to shoot any officer on the street.
Argumentum ad absurdum. We're talking about police using
dynamic entry tactics on _PRIVATE_PROPERTY_! This is not
a discussion of whether or not you are subject to being
pulled over on the PUBLIC road system by duly appointed,
and easily identifiable officers.
Sheesh!
Keith
Keith
Yes, but they surely didn't shout "Search warrant!" unless
of course they were lying.
Keith
Mike
Bob Tiernan wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> > The key is reasonably believed. The officers were dressed in
> > identifying jacekets and , at least one, had a full uniform.
> > Knocks out the self-defense issue.
>
>
> Seven gangsters (actually five gangsters, their on-call
> auto mechanic, and an eye doctor who liked hanging around
> gangsters) were confronted in their garage hangout by
> two men dressed in *police uniforms*. They willingly
> agreed to line up facing a wall to be frisked in what
> they believed to be yet another annoying though harmless
> visit by local police. While they were facing the wall,
> two un-uniformed men then came in with Thompson sub-
> machine guns and mowed them down.
>
> Bob T.
Yeah, Bob, copy-cat crimes like the St. Valentine's Day thing happen so
frequently as to come close to justifying the slaying of Portland cops.
Hell, the next time I'm stopped in my auto, such as happened on January
12, I might just start firing away, for I might be about to be
massacred.
You're reaching.
Mike
--
______________________________________________
When good men are silent, evil will reign
"I haven't committed a crime. What I did was fail to
comply with the law." David Dinkins, ex-New York City mayor,
answering accusations that he failed to pay his taxes.
WEB PAGE UPDATED: 6 Noevember, 1997
http://www.teleport.com/~mthomps/Thompson.htm
Joshua R. Poulson
Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> writes:
> > Police officers who weren't trained in dynamic entry attempted
> > one. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Can we dispense with the gobbeldy-gook textbook terms?
If you talk to cops and use that term they'll know exactly what you
mean. While traffic stops kills more cops than anything, the thing
they hate the most is the dynamic entry. Well, domestic abuse calls
are pretty high on the list too.
Joshua R. Poulson
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> Tragically, the officers did not know this person was a murderous ass,
> ready to kill. Had they known, they would have chosen a different
> tact. So would have Custer.
Fine, surprise warrantless attacks on American citizens are stupid.
Is that better?
Joshua R. Poulson
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> How many times have the police been outside your apartment shouting
> "Police. Search warrant!"?
Once. When I opened the door they didn't even flinch to see my sidearm
strapped to my side. They asked me a couple questions about the
previous occupant of my apartment, and left. Nonetheless they did a
knock & talk at 8:00am on a Sunday. Who knows what it would have been
like if they had done it at 3:00am when most dynamic entries are
attempted.
My concern here is for the safety of everyone involved. Doing things
intended to make the situation volatile tends to make the situation
volatile. Dynamic entry is fraught will lack of control on everyone's
part. Why do it? Is marijuana really that important?
No. It's not.
Joshua R. Poulson
mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
> > Possession of marijuana is not illegal in Oregon?
> It's termed an "infraction", and is not, to my knowledge, grounds for
> a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
While this has been changed recently (it's not longer an infraction,
it's once again a misdemeanor), I think that he was suspected of
dealing in this case, not possession.
> No sir, behaviour is what identifies police office to me. Police
> cars, with lights. Police in regular uniforms behaving in a manner
> appropriate for civil servants. Not shouting, swearing, kicking
> doors down, guns waving, without even a warrant in hand. Maybe they
> saw some cars in the driveway they really liked, who knows.
Yup. The badge and uniforms are supposed to have a sobering effect on
people. Dressing like a stormtrooper and busting into a house
bristling with armament doesn't have a sobering effect on anyone.
> These kind of tactics should be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for WARRANT service
> on VIOLENT criminals.
Unfortunately, the modern conception of violent criminals is "drug
users" and "drug dealers". This greatly expands the number of people
these tactics will be used upon.
Joshua R. Poulson
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> Now, do you realize that you can say that about any officer you meet?
> I'm sorry if some may use this tact (actually, I've never heard of any
> using a full uniform) but if this is to be a legitimate defense, then
> you grant the right to shoot any officer on the street.
What would you do if someone wearing a uniform attacked you violently,
you were afraid for your life, and you thought he was going to kill
you?
Would you rule out self-defense as an option?
Joshua R. Poulson
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) writes:
> Not under all circumstances. Is it reasonable to believe that all
> officers who come to your door are burglars?
Is it unreasonable to believe that people breaking through your door
with weapons are dangerous to your life?
Joshua R. Poulson
Speeding is a violation. Unsafe driving is a crime. Reckless
endangerment is a felony.
It's a question of degree.
> They had uniforms. They shout to be heard. The murderer gave them no
> chance to show a warrant. Why don't you just admit that a criminal
> murdered an officer and find another case to trumpet?
I only admit that the cops screwed the pooch on this one.
Joshua R. Poulson
-Outlaw Frog Raper- <outl...@hotmail.com> writes:
> Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
> to violate rights to enforce the law.
Get a warrant and cops trained in the art of dynamic entry.
Joshua R. Poulson
> thugs to knock and talk with them? I think that is what led to the
> overthrow.
Actually, knock and talk encounters were frequent at the time. The
"founding fathers" were not fond of such tactics.
Mike Chapman
In article <34d632b1...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevin Murphy <Kevi...@mail.concentric.net> wrote:
>On Fri, 30 Jan 1998 18:35:35 -0800, Keith <k...@proaxis.com> wrote:
>> Really? Are you saying that it's impossible for folks other
>> than police officers to dress up as police officers and shout
>> out that they are police officers?
>
>I'm sorry if some may use this tact (actually, I've never heard of any
>using a full uniform) but if this is to be a legitimate defense, then
>you grant the right to shoot any officer on the street.
If you haven't done anything wrong, I think you have a very broad
right to ensure your safety when being arrested. For example, if
you're a woman alone, pulled over on a rural stretch of highway,
don't get out of the car no matter what the cop says if you
aren't a criminal. Don't even stop, drive to a public place and
demand more officers.
Or in your home. If you aren't a criminal, you should not be expected
to believe that people entering your home by force are actually police
officers. Now if you can see flashing lights and so on outside, you
should not resist, but if you are awoken by the door coming down and
men rushing in, I don't see how anyone could expect you not to fire
on them. Not being a criminal, your first impression would likely
be that criminals have entered.
In light of that, no-knock entries should only be made in the most
extreme of cases where a violent criminal is loose. It's not
worth the risk of injury to the officers or innocent people if
the anonymous informant in a drug case gave bad information.
The rights of the innocent are more important than anything else.
Aaron Varhola
>Getting a warrant does not keep anyone safe. It'll only cause you to
>attack them on a different front. Exigent circumstances is not a
>"loophole".
"Exigent circumstances" is a loophole big enough to drive the cops'
battering ram vehicle through, thanks to the Rehnquist Court.
Excuse me, but getting a warrant ensures that the police have some
*reason* to conduct a search, and aren't going fishing for nice cars
or houses in their hunt for "drug booty". The warrant requirement is
one of the cornerstones of protection for Americans from tyranny at
the hands of the police, who have turned from a watchful neighbor into
an occupying army.
For the Portlanders here: why are they conducting these raids on pot
growers when they're too lazy to investigate crimes that actually have
a victim? My car was broken into several months ago, and the police
sent me a form to fill out. The perp left a piece of evidence (the
knife he used to pry open my glove compartment) in the car. I noted
it on the form; I wasn't even contacted by the cops, even though I had
a piece of evidence that could be helpful in solving the crime.
Aaron
George H. Patrick, III
JRyder wrote:
> There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
> at the other end: FREEDOM.
There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
at the other end: ANARCHY
Mike Chapman
In article <34db3699...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevin Murphy <Kevi...@mail.concentric.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 07:01:05 GMT, jlow...@acusd.edu (John Lowther)
>wrote:
>>infraction is one level of illegal act, much like misdemeanors and
>>felonies, which, in some states, are either (a) expressly defined by the
>>penal code, or (b) are determined based on proscribed prison terms for
>>each offense.
>
>So possesion of marijuana is illegal, unlike what a previous poster
>said. It's just a lower grad offense and carries lighter penalties.
Kevin, you're obviously having a very hard time with this, and I'm not
sure why. I didn't say that marijuana wasn't illegal, I said that
under an ounce is merely an infraction, and is not grounds for any
kind of forced entry.
You're the one who proposed that marijuana wasn't illegal.
Dear god, you aren't a cop are you?
Bob Tiernan
Keith <k...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> Besides, the police in this incident didn't shout "Police.
> Search warrant!"
But they could have shouted "Police! Search warrant coming
in six hours!"
Bob T.
Mike Chapman
In article <clw-3101...@ip-pdx36-43.teleport.com>,
<c...@teleport.com> wrote:
>In article <JVtA.8286$pA2.1...@news.internetMCI.com>, mi...@paranoia.com
>(Mike Chapman) wrote:
>> These kind of tactics should be reserved EXCLUSIVELY for WARRANT service
>> on VIOLENT criminals.
>
>behavior.
Where can I find it?
Mike Chapman
In article <uen1og...@informix.com>,
Joshua R. Poulson <j...@informix.com> wrote:
>mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) writes:
>> > Possession of marijuana is not illegal in Oregon?
>>
>> It's termed an "infraction", and is not, to my knowledge, grounds for
>> a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
>
>While this has been changed recently (it's not longer an infraction,
>it's once again a misdemeanor), I think that he was suspected of
>dealing in this case, not possession.
False, it's still an infraction. We'll be voting on the increase
in penalty this November. Because a sufficient number of people signed
the petitition to put the matter on the ballot, the law does not
go into effect until voted upon.
The smell of marijuana smoke is not evidence of dealing. If they
had a single person who had actually bought marijuana from this
guy, or seen him with felonious amounts, they would've had a warrant.
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
So slavery is your choice? Are you a slaveowner? I mean jailer?
--
-- OFR --
.
Bob Tiernan
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Mike wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Ever hear of the St, Valentine's Day Massacre (1929 Chicago)?
[snip of story involving fake cops used to
lull seven men into lining up against a wall
for a routine frisk so that they could
easily be machine-gunned to death]
> Yeah, Bob, copy-cat crimes like the St. Valentine's Day
> thing happen so frequently as to come close to justifying
> the slaying of Portland cops.
Story wasn't used to justify the killing of anybody.
Please do not make such conclusions. You are making
a lot of erroneous and slanderous conclusions about
a lot of people posting about this case.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On Sat, 31 Jan 1998, Keith wrote:
> Argumentum ad absurdum. We're talking about police
> using dynamic entry tactics on _PRIVATE_PROPERTY_!
Whether the cops were entirely wrong or not, at least
we can still *have* this argument based on property
rights. But give the Progressives, liberals, and
environmental extremists some more time, and we'll
all be living on "public" property which the government
can inspect any time it wants to.
Bob T.
Bob Tiernan
On 31 Jan 1998, Mike Chapman wrote:
> If you haven't done anything wrong, I think you have a very broad
> right to ensure your safety when being arrested. For example, if
> you're a woman alone, pulled over on a rural stretch of highway,
> don't get out of the car no matter what the cop says if you
> aren't a criminal. Don't even stop, drive to a public place and
> demand more officers.
That's correct. What you should do, as explained to me by
a retired Sheriff's Deputy in Clack County, is to wave the
officer on to follow you while you continue driving at a
pace not indicating flight. I know that this obvious
"slap in the face" to LEO's integrity drives Mike mad,
but so be it.
Bob T.
Tim Starr
In article <34d4142b...@news.teleport.com>,
Steve Kangas <redc...@teleport.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 31 Jan 1998 05:57:07 -0700, glpr...@sprintmail.com wrote:
>
>>In article <6au7cn$ksd$1...@news.cyberhighway.net>,
>>jryder...@cyberhighway.net (JRyder) wrote:
>>
>>> One of my favorite bands is called M.D.C.
>>>
>>> Million of Dead Cops!
>>>
>>> One of their best songs is "Dead Cops Rock", a cover to the music of
>>Presley's
>>> "Jailhouse Rock". But their best song is called: "Dead Cops" and its on
>>their
>>> title album: _MDC_
>>>
>>> Sing along with me :)
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>>You can join Steve Kangas on the bumper of the SERT vehicle, clothing optional.
>
>Don't count me in here.
>
>If you think I am somehow pleased that two police officers were shot,
>you are wrong. The fact remains, however, that wars kill people. How
>long have we been fighting the war on drugs, thirty years? How
>successful have we been? We lost because we are fighting a disease
>with prisons, a sickness with punishment.
What disease? What sickness?
[snip]
>Solution: Invest in the future. Spend some money preventing child
>abuse and neglect, some money on education and the educators who the
>kids see every day, instead of the DARE officer who wanders through.
Uh-huh. Spend unlimited amounts of money on "prevention" programs whose
results can't be measured in any way, which will work as well as all those
other "prevention" programs that trillions of dollars have been blown on in
the USA since the mid 1960s.
>Ban alcohol so kids don't see a double standard...
You can't be serious.
>then treat the people who use drugs and alcohol as we would any sick person.
Wait for them to go to a hospital or doctor for help, then treat any real
diseases they have (ones with asymptomatic definitions)?
Why bother banning anything, then?
If the "disease" of addiction justifies the use of prior restraint against
the makers & sellers of drugs & alcohol, then it justifies the involuntary
hospitalization of addicts.
"If guns are outlawed, only the government will have guns. Only the police,
the secret police, the military, the hired servants of our rulers. Only the
government--and a few outlaws. I intend to be among the outlaws."
--Edward Abbey (1927-1989), _Abbey's Road,_ p.39_(Plume, 1979)
Tim Starr - Renaissance Now! Think Universally, Act Selfishly
Assistant Editor: Freedom Network News, the newsletter of The International
Society for Individual Liberty (ISIL), http://www.isil.org/
Personal home page: http://www.creative.net/~star/timstarr.htm
Liberty is the Best Policy - tims...@netcom.com
glpr...@sprintmail.com
In article <34d4142b...@news.teleport.com>, redc...@teleport.com
(Steve Kangas) wrote:
> Solution: Invest in the future. Spend some money preventing child
> abuse and neglect, some money on education and the educators who the
> kids see every day, instead of the DARE officer who wanders through.
> Ban alcohol so kids don't see a double standard, then treat the people
> who use drugs and alcohol as we would any sick person.
>
> I don't really know for sure what the solution is. It's just
> cathartic to yammer away. Maybe Theo Colborn's book "Our Stolen
> Future" will prove prophetic and we will all fade to black.......
First you offer a solution, then you don't have one??? Let me suggest a
book that might offer some assistance. "Inside the Criminal Mind" by
Stanton E. Samenow, PhD.
Continuing to throw money at the problem is not the solution. A kid's home
environment is not the cause, neither is peer pressure, alcoholism,
genetics, TV or poverty. The vast majority of people turn out normal
regardless of their background. It comes down to realizing the criminals
do not think the same way as normal people. Some people are wired
differently.
The solution is to identify kids and adults who are committing these
thinking errors early on and correct it before they have engaged in the
criminal lifestyle. Is the success rate going to be 100%? Of course not,
because the process involves personal responsibility and these people
making the choice to change.
The problem here is the politicians who have playing this Rehabilitation
Vs. Incarceration tug of war for the past 20 or so years. As long as this
continues nothing is going to change.
GHalleck1
>Subject: Re: Cops shot breaking and entering
>From: mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman)
>Kevin, you're obviously having a very hard time with this, and I'm not
>sure why.
Well, I've noted quite a few posts from you and I'm not sure why either. Who's
having the hard time? Who's new to the NG? Not like Kevin went looking for a
fight in alt.pot-smokers...
I didn't say that marijuana wasn't illegal, I said that
>under an ounce is merely an infraction, and is not grounds for any
>kind of forced entry.
Well, it seems that there was abit more than an ounce in Portland...
>You're the one who proposed that marijuana wasn't illegal.
>
>Dear god, you aren't a cop are you?
God, wouldn't that be terrible. It also shows how objective someone that
spends most of his time in misc.activism.militia, bad-mouthing "the man," can
be.
GHalleck
GHalleck1
>Subject: Re: In Memory of the slain Portland Police officers
>From: redc...@teleport.com (Steve Kangas)
>People like you see it as a fight against evil. Drug dealers are no
>more evil than our corporate leaders, since they too are driven by
>greed.
But evil none-the-less. We can discuss corporate greed in
alt.shady.business...
Drug users are no more evil than a person afflicted with any
>disease. How would you feel if your - say brother - had cancer and
>the police came, arrested, and prosecuted him for being sick? More
>important, how would he feel? I think he would come out with as much
>hatred as the cricumstances warrant.
And apologies like this help law-breakers rationalize their misconduct. As
long as society fails to hold anyone accountable for thier own actions, laws
will fail. As if people aren't afforded the opportunity to get help! Ever
heard of "drug diversion?" In California (and many other places), the first
serious drug violation is diverted to "probation" (no search clause) and
manditory treatment....a "freebe."
>
>Why do you suppose the cop killer hates women? If you saw a
>photograph of the guy it would help explain it: "Women seem wicked
>when you're alone."
Shallow, yet not surprising...
The guy is a social reject, a l-o-s-e-r, a
>socipath. He was going nowhere and he knew it. So the guy did what
>all Americans want to do: He tried to get rich. Imagine women
>falling at your wealthy drug-dealing feet, DARE cars before they are
>seized, boats, planes, travel. Then the cops come to your door to
>take you back to that lonely gas station and the whores who service
>the employees. Granted, most people are sane enough to cope with
>their lot in life, or change it. But not this guy. He was crazy
>enough to kill a cop. Now we'll house him for the rest of his
>miserable life, or maybe kill him in a few years.
>
And all that from one freshman psychology class!
>Who knows where the guy came from. The only thing we know for sure is
>he was not born to kill a cop. Somewhere, somehow, something fucked
>the guy up so much he perpetrated the horror...... The job of the
>system and ourselves it to recognize that guy before it's too late.
>Watch what happens as we lock more and more kids up for longer
>periods. The kids blowing it are not the affluent middle class. They
>are the neglected and abused kids. When they get out of jail they
>will hate themselves and society more than ever, and the horror show
>will become more frightening.
>
Moral: Don't punish any misbehavior.
>Solution: Invest in the future. Spend some money preventing child
>abuse and neglect, some money on education and the educators who the
>kids see every day, instead of the DARE officer who wanders through.
If you think DARE is simplistic, thank God you aren't a cop. I can imagine you
making one of these heartening, soul-wrenching assumptions as the crook smashes
your ticket book into your face.
>Ban alcohol so kids don't see a double standard, then treat the people
>who use drugs and alcohol as we would any sick person.
>
You can't stop drug traffic and you want to bring back prohibition?!
BWHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! You think you've got a lack of comitment and courage now?
>I don't really know for sure what the solution is.
The first sense you've made.
GHalleck
Ed
> Yes, an infraction. Essentially, any violation of the law for which
> there is only a fine, is not a misdemeanor, it's an "infraction" (or
> "violation", these laws are a mess).
Wrong. Citations are a courtesy. An arrest can be made for these
"infractions".
> Cuz I don't KNOW what happened, and unlike you, I don't assume
> that every time a cop is killed, a murder has taken place.
Wrong again. Of course, I have a biased opinion on this one....
Mike Chapman
In article <01bd2f02$3c7e6b80$e4f8c898@pariah7>,
Ed <par...@concentric.net> wrote:
>> Yes, an infraction. Essentially, any violation of the law for which
>> there is only a fine, is not a misdemeanor, it's an "infraction" (or
>> "violation", these laws are a mess).
>
> Wrong. Citations are a courtesy. An arrest can be made for these
>"infractions".
Ed, do you make this up as you go or what?
From the Oregon Revised Statutes, 1995 edition:
133.072 Citation for violation committed in presence of peace
officer; investigative stop and detention.
(1) When a person has committed a violation as defined in ORS 161.565
in the presence of a peace officer, the officer may issue and serve
a citation to the person as provided in ORS 133.055 and 133.065.
(2) The peace officer may stop and detain a person for a violation
offense for the purposes of investigation reasonably related to the
violation offense, identification of the person and issuance of a
citation to the person.
(3) A peace officer may detain a person pursuant to this section
only for such time as it is reasonably necessary to investigate and
verify the person's identity.
161.565 "Violation" described; misdemeanor treated as violation.
(1) An offense is a violation if:
(a) The offense is so designated in the statute defining the
offense;
(b) The statute prescribing the penalty for the offense provides
that the offense is punishable only by a fine, forfeiture, fine and
forfeiture or other civil penalty;
or
(c) The offense is declared to be a violation for purposes of the
particular case, as provided in subsection (2) of this section.
>> Cuz I don't KNOW what happened, and unlike you, I don't assume
>> that every time a cop is killed, a murder has taken place.
>
>Wrong again. Of course, I have a biased opinion on this one....
What am I wrong about, precisely?
talltom
George H. Patrick, III wrote:
>
> JRyder wrote:
>
> > There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
> > at the other end: FREEDOM.
>
> There is a spectrum upon which lie two endpoints. One point is slavery, and
> at the other end: ANARCHY
So do you have a point???? Think maybe you could tell us what it might
be???
Jon Beaver
Terry Miller
Joshua,
I think it is ironic that the actions by the British Throne that carried
the US to the point of fighting them were the seizures of warehouses AND
private property. Sam Adams and company had already begun the
"Committees of Corespondence" to solidify opposition, but the British
kept pushing the line to find these "smugglers" ( a common practice in
1765). It took a few years, but the angry and distrust continued until
war began and we know the history from that point forward.
Americans (outside of law enforcement) have always carried the right to
privacy close to their heart. It is unfortunate that Law Enforcement
does not.
pdxn...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-28800, N81)
Terry Miller
Aaron,
That's exactly what the studies done so far tend to show. The study (by
Rasmussen and company) done comparing Kansas and Florida (Kansas spends
considerably less resources on the drug war, Florida is the other
extreme) shows what we all know- when you spend more on drug arrests,
crime in other areas goes up. When you spend less, you get a better grip
on "real" crimes, especially crime involving violence. This is an easy
choice for me. The pity is that if the time and effort to deal with this
guy had happened at some other point in his past by law enforcement,
who had the time and money to keep him away from the public, this never
would have happened. When the "Oregonian" reports that the police
complain of not having enough time to check out details, I wonder if
they would have time if we weren't spending $300,000 plus per year on
crimes that have no effect on the public safety.
No amount of pot in that house could have been worth anyone's life. I'm
so surprised and depressed that patience can't be a factor in situations
involving human life.
TD Miller
Director PDX NORML
pdxn...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport
Matthew Montchalin
Someone wrote:
>>> Besides, the police in this incident didn't shout "Police.
>>> Search warrant!"
Another wrote:
>>But they could have shouted "Police! Search warrant coming
>>in six hours!"
Jon Beaver wrote:
>It only takes a few minutes to get a warrant.
At 3 am, the officers thought they smelled pot smoke --- presumably
wafting from the chimney, a towering plume of thick stuff rising up
and then coming down, blanketing the area?? --- and therefore
returned to the station to file a report? and to see if Judge Michael
Marcus has, after all this time, finally signed the search warrant?
Since I am not a pot smoker --- nor even any other kind of smoker (my
allergies are way too intense to suffer my way into any of those kinds of
dependencies) --- I need to ask a question that somebody around here can
answer for me:
If several bales of ordinary roadside "hemp" --- the wild stuff that grows
in the south, and which has virtually no narco-hallucinogenic properties,
and commands virtually no market power among marijuana users --- is thrown
into a woodstove, will it produce such a kind of smoke that trained
experts may mistake it for pot smoke?
(So far as I can tell, virtually all smoke stinks equally bad, and
constitutes a noxious irritant.)
--
At enim vela pendent liminibus grammaticarum scholarum, sed non illa magis
honorem secreti quam tegimentum erroris significant. -Confessiones St. Aug.
GHalleck1
>Subject: Re: Cops shot breaking and entering
>From: -Outlaw Frog Raper- <outl...@hotmail.com>
>Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
>to violate rights to enforce the law.
>
> -- OFR --
How would a warrant prevent the suspect from shooting the cops? He hates cops,
he's armed, he's resisted lawfull authority in the past but this time, the cops
have a PIECE OF PAPER. Get a grip on reality.
The warrant only serves to address the officers' authority to enter, minus
other circumstances that allow them to enter. A warrant isn't a shield.
GHalleck
glpr...@sprintmail.com
In article <34d4cebe...@news.teleport.com>, redc...@teleport.com
(Steve Kangas) wrote:
> I agree that criminals do not think like normal people. Why is that?
> As for your assertion that alcohol does not play a role, I disagree.
> In fact, a newpaper article (right or wrong) recently cited the
> statistic that drugs and alcohol play a role in 80% of incarcerations.
The fact is that if you resolve the addiction the underlying problem that
led to the addiction still exists. These people had problems long before
they got hooked on drugs and alcohol.
Robb Topolski
Matthew Montchalin wrote in message <6b2g47$o...@ednet2.orednet.org>...
>(So far as I can tell, virtually all smoke stinks equally bad, and
>constitutes a noxious irritant.)
This is not true. Candle shops love adding scent to smoke, so do incense
(sp?) makers. Tires are especially noxious, but burning coconut husks just
bothers mosquitoes. A good wood smoke adds flavor to meat. Marijuana smoke
is especially pungent and rather distinct.
Robb Topolski
-Outlaw Frog Raper-
-Outlaw Frog Raper- wrote:
>
> Kevin Murphy wrote:
>
> > To answer your questions. The occupants. No. Was the neighbor's dog in
> > the house? Yes, he hit three of them, killing one. Yes. I hardly think
> > he thought "gangsters" were invading his house. That line of defense
> > can apply to any crook who shoots a cop.
>
> Only if they shoot them in their home.
>
> Solution: Get a warrant, no one gets hurt. Stop trying to use loopholes
> to violate rights to enforce the law.
>
GHalleck wrote:
> How would a warrant prevent the suspect from shooting the cops?
The warrant is for the citizen's protection from your overstepping
your authority by acting like a criminal.
> He hates cops,
> he's armed, he's resisted lawfull authority in the past but this time, the cops
> have a PIECE OF PAPER.
Maybe he ran across criminal cops that used similar unlawful tactics
before
and that is the cause of his hate. In any case, they had no "papers".
Therefore criminals. Yes they won't be charged, so they will be
uncharged
criminals with badges, free to continue with their abusive behavior.
> The warrant only serves to address the officers' authority to enter, minus
> other circumstances that allow them to enter. A warrant isn't a shield.
No, it's not a shield, it's the people's permission slip for cops to
step
outside the law and use force to enter due to exceptional circumstances.
It
is allowed by the people and the courts as acceptable police behavior.
When a warrant is not issued, the occupants feel protected by the
Constitution,
but they are in fact victims of unlawful attacks. The cop doesn't get
charged
with a crime, only because the warrant allows him to commit the crime of
breaking
into the property. The problems arise here. Since cops don't get charged
for their crimes that are committed without a warrant, they take it as a
" magic Shield and
proceed to trample the Constitution and the rights of the people.
You argued with me that cops can sell drugs and then bust the buyer and
the
reason is lack of intent to commit a crime. Well I see in the Penal Law
that
it says "knowingly and willingly commits" the crime. Therefore they are
criminals.
The reason for the warrant is to not leave the citizen at the mercy of a
criminal cop. It's the shield of the citizens. You just want sheep to
lay down
their lives to you.
If a cop wants to break a law to enforce it, then "tell it to the judge"
and get your warrant. This problem is the main cause of the escalation
of
the drug war and the violence.
> GHalleck
--
-- OFR --
Robb Topolski
Jon Beaver wrote in message <34d4914a....@nntp.imagecomp.com>...
>It only takes a few minutes to get a warrant.
I'm not saying you're wrong, but how do you know this, or is this just an
assumption? How many affidavits have you written? Yes, you can fax them
but they do take some time to prepare. Does Oregon have some kind of fast
track for search warrants?
Robb Topolski
Robb Topolski
Terry Miller wrote in message ...
>I think it is ironic that the actions by the British Throne that carried
>the US to the point of fighting them were the seizures of warehouses AND
>private property. Sam Adams and company had already begun the
>"Committees of Corespondence" to solidify opposition, but the British
>kept pushing the line to find these "smugglers" ( a common practice in
>1765). It took a few years, but the angry and distrust continued until
>war began and we know the history from that point forward.
>
>Americans (outside of law enforcement) have always carried the right to
>privacy close to their heart. It is unfortunate that Law Enforcement
>does not.
Apples and oranges. The throne was seizing property to force colonists to
buy British imports, which were being actively boycotted and sometimes
destroyed unsold. Privacy was never the issue.
There was no presumed right to privacy until well into the 1900s.
Robb Topolski
Stephanie Spanhel
In or.politics Bob Tiernan <zu...@teleport.com> wrote:
> Keith <k...@proaxis.com> wrote:
> > Besides, the police in this incident didn't shout "Police.
> > Search warrant!"
> But they could have shouted "Police! Search warrant coming
> in six hours!"
The search warrant was signed six hours later, after the cops were already
shot, yes? Had they not been shot, would the warrant have been signed in
that time frame? I doubt it -- it smells fishy.
The implication that the warrant would have been signed within six hours
had there been no 'bash & harass' has no logical foundation.
-Steph
--
--
"Politicians ARE interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue.
Fleas are interested in dogs." -- P J O'Rourke st...@aracnet.com
Jon Beaver
mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) wrote:
>
>Someone wrote:
>>>> Besides, the police in this incident didn't shout "Police.
>>>> Search warrant!"
>
>Another wrote:
>>>But they could have shouted "Police! Search warrant coming
>>>in six hours!"
>
>Jon Beaver wrote:
>>It only takes a few minutes to get a warrant.
>
>At 3 am, the officers thought they smelled pot smoke --- presumably
>wafting from the chimney, a towering plume of thick stuff rising up
>and then coming down, blanketing the area?? --- and therefore
>returned to the station to file a report? and to see if Judge Michael
>Marcus has, after all this time, finally signed the search warrant?
>
I'm sorry, but are you saying that they had applied for a warrant and
it had already been refused and so they raided anyway? And now they
are trying to use "exigent circumstances" as an excuse? You were
joking, right?
-Jon Beaver
GHalleck1
>Subject: Re: In Memory of the slain Portland Police officers
>From: redc...@teleport.com (Steve Kangas)
> Alcohol should be illegal, or we should legalize marijuana.
>Since there is no way to control either, I advocate the latter. But,
>until society wakes up, we should make alcohol illegal. We look like
>fools to our children who see us saying one drug is ok, the other is
>not
Remember the mention of a little thing called "Prohibition?" It provided
organized crime with the foothold it needed to secure the "industry" it is up
to the present. I can't believe that you really think two "wrongs" make a
right. MJ is illegal, so to be straight (or vindictive), let's make alcohol
illegal too....whatever.
GHalleck
GHalleck1
>Subject: Re: Cops shot breaking "The Law"
>From: -Outlaw Frog Raper- <outl...@hotmail.com>
>> How would a warrant prevent the suspect from shooting the cops?
>
>The warrant is for the citizen's protection from your overstepping
>your authority by acting like a criminal.
Still, you fail to answer the question: How would the warrant stop bullets?
>> He hates cops,
>> he's armed, he's resisted lawfull authority in the past but this time, the
>cops
>> have a PIECE OF PAPER.
>
>Maybe he ran across criminal cops that used similar unlawful tactics
>before
>and that is the cause of his hate. In any case, they had no "papers".
Maybe the sun will shine tommorrow...maybe I'll have pasta for lunch...maybe
you're smoking crack. In any case, the paper still doesn't stop a bullet. Try
to concentrate.
>Therefore criminals.
Wrong. They were acting upon an exigency to preserve evidence, from all
appearances. Again, you made the Halloween party but you forgot to bring a
costume...
Yes they won't be charged, so they will be
>uncharged
>criminals with badges, free to continue with their abusive behavior.
>
To a sociopath that makes his own rules and expects the rest of society to go
along, yes, this would seem "abusive." My suggestion would be to find a remote
mountain cabin and start writting a manifesto...
>> The warrant only serves to address the officers' authority to enter, minus
>> other circumstances that allow them to enter. A warrant isn't a shield.
>
>
>No, it's not a shield, it's the people's permission slip for cops to
>step
>outside the law and use force to enter due to exceptional circumstances.
Actually, it's the judge's permission to enter and/or arrest, based upon his
belief that probable cause exists to do so.
>It
>is allowed by the people and the courts as acceptable police behavior.
>When a warrant is not issued, the occupants feel protected by the
>Constitution,
>but they are in fact victims of unlawful attacks. The cop doesn't get
>charged
>with a crime, only because the warrant allows him to commit the crime of
>breaking
>into the property. The problems arise here. Since cops don't get charged
>for their crimes that are committed without a warrant, they take it as a
>" magic Shield and
>proceed to trample the Constitution and the rights of the people.
>
>
Again, crack kills. Do you just make it up as you go? Or are these heart-felt
ramblings? Surely, we'll eventually see the reason behind the madness...just
keep saying it. Keep telling everyone that the law really isn't the law.
>You argued with me that cops can sell drugs and then bust the buyer and
>the
>reason is lack of intent to commit a crime. Well I see in the Penal Law
>that
>it says "knowingly and willingly commits" the crime. Therefore they are
>criminals.
>
"The Penal Law?" You mean the "Penal Code?" Which state? Besides, "knowing"
and "willingly" aren't the words of focus here...it's "commits the crime."
Crimes are composed of two parts: the act and the intent. Cops that buy/sell
are doing the act but not completing the intent portion. That's okay...if you
want to believe that they are, fine. The other 99% of society will at least
concede this point of law (right or wrong).
>The reason for the warrant is to not leave the citizen at the mercy of a
>criminal cop. It's the shield of the citizens. You just want sheep to
>lay down
>their lives to you.
>
That's what I want....No! Wait! What I really want is an honest accountant!!
No! What I really want is a new restraunt in town! No! Oh damn, I don't know
what I want anymore....
>If a cop wants to break a law to enforce it, then "tell it to the judge"
>and get your warrant. This problem is the main cause of the escalation
>of
>the drug war and the violence.
This is true. If cops would just quit enforcing drug laws, people would stop
using them and dealers would go out of business. No! Drug dealers would stop
selling and people couldn't use....oh, that's not it either! !
GHalleck
Larry Caldwell
In article <34da359d...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) wrote:
> Not under all circumstances. Is it reasonable to believe that all
> officers who come to your door are burglars?
Of course not. However, it is reasonable to believe that anyone who
breaks down your door is a violent criminal, regardless of how they
are dressed.
> According to the news, they did and one had a full uniform. You're
> allowing a defense that would permit killing any cop who stops a
> person.
Is every police stop accompanied by violent action on the part of the
police? You seem to be overlooking the fact that the violence was
initiated by the police. It was not in response to anything the
citizen did. That certainly moves this into the realm of reasonable
self defense.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
In article <34e18e91...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) wrote:
> Getting a warrant does not keep anyone safe. It'll only cause you to
> attack them on a different front. Exigent circumstances is not a
> "loophole".
Certainly it is. All "exigent circumstance" means is they thought it was
a good idea. As it turns out, it wasn't such a good idea.
Have you ever considered the mentality of police officers who would pull
a cowboy stunt like this? Here they have a possible drug dealer, burning
his stash. They could stand around outside until he finishes, laughing
while thousands of dollars worth of dope goes up in smoke, then wave
and leave. A couple of visits like that and the guy would be out of
business and flat broke. If it was a big stash, that one camp fire
put the guy in a world of hurt.
Instead of moderate and reasonable police action, they decided to
initiate a violent encounter instead. As it turned out, this was not
a good idea. The "exigent circumstance" loophole means they will
probably not be held accountable for their actions in a court of
law. However, the real world does not honor loopholes.
There is good reason it is illegal to batter down someone's door. The
occupant may object.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
In article <34d381b...@news.concentric.net>,
Kevi...@mail.concentric.net (Kevin Murphy) wrote:
> mi...@paranoia.com (Mike Chapman) wrote:
> >> Possession of marijuana is not illegal in Oregon?
> >It's termed an "infraction", and is not, to my knowledge, grounds for
> >a search of your car, house or companions. It's like speeding.
> A legal infraction? How is there such a thing?
> Speeding is not illegal in Oregon, either?
Possession of less than an ounce of pot is a civil infraction in Oregon,
not a criminal offense. There is no possiblity of jail time, and
conviction has no effect on the criminal record. Some kinds of
speeding are a crime in Oregon, some are not. It depends on how fast
you are going and under what circumstances.
The most recent legislature restored criminal penalties for possession
of small amounts of marijuana, but a citizen committee forced it to
referendum by petition. The whole state gets to vote on it in the
next general election this May.
At the moment, the old law is still in effect, so possession of small
amounts of pot is not a crime. The most a police officer can do is
hand you a ticket for it and confiscate your pot.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
In article <uen1og...@informix.com>,
j...@informix.com (Joshua R. Poulson) wrote:
> While this has been changed recently (it's not longer an infraction,
> it's once again a misdemeanor),
No, it hasn't been changed, Joshua. The legislature tried to change it,
but the citizens forced the new law to a referendum by petition. By the
Oregon constitution, the law can not take effect until approved by
referendum.
-- Larry
Larry Caldwell
In article <6auun9$5...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>,
"Counselor" <counselo...@unforgettable.com> wrote:
> Reviewing the Oregon statutes briefly without delving into them , I
> seem to notice that it is only a misdemeanor if the amount in possession
> is under one ounce.
You are mistaken. It is a civil infraction, like a parking ticket. It
is not a crime of any type.
-- Larry
Terry Miller
Robb,
Perhaps you'd like to read Sam Adams biography....I did.
TD
On Sun, 1 Feb
1998, Robb
Topolski wrote:
pdxn...@teleport.COM Public Access User -- Not affiliated with Teleport