SCOTUS takes a step in the "Reich" direction

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Furplay

unread,
Apr 25, 2001, 6:38:28 PM4/25/01
to
First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without warrant.

What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
off of your mattress?

Let's leave this "Judge Dredd" mentality in the comix and B movies, ng'kay?

http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_a36ed66a103302301071.html

--
"Who is driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"

Captain Compassion

unread,
Apr 25, 2001, 7:25:16 PM4/25/01
to
On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:38:28 -0500, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net>
wrote:

>First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
>that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without warrant.
>

You can be arrested without a warrent if you are in the porcess of
comitting a crime.

>What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
>off of your mattress?
>

Yep along with shooting an Owl, carring more than $1000 shootin a deer
on your own property. and speaking your mind in public.



>Let's leave this "Judge Dredd" mentality in the comix and B movies, ng'kay?
>
>http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_a36ed66a103302301071.html
>
>--
>"Who is driving? Oh my God! Bear is driving!! How can that be?????"

"It is therefore cometary impacts that we must thank for the equable
spell of climate in which human history and civilisation has prospered
so spectacularly. The renewal of ice-age conditions would render a
large fraction of the world's major food-growing areas inoperable, and so would inevitably lead to the extinction of most of the present human population. Since bolide impacts cannot be called up to order, we must look to a sustained greenhouse effect to maintain the present advantageous world climate. This might imply the ability to inject effective greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, the opposite of what environmentalists are erroneously advocating."

-Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Cardiff University,
March 2001

The Greens/Green Party USA
PO Box 1134
Lawrence, MA 01842

The average temperature of the universe 3 degrees K
above absolute zero. I'm much more afraid of the cold.

Joseph R. Darancette
dar...@uia.net

Mark Neglay

unread,
Apr 25, 2001, 7:30:01 PM4/25/01
to
Who are *they*?

Do they fly black helicopters?

Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3AE751E4...@radiks.net...

C. Pangus

unread,
Apr 25, 2001, 7:37:12 PM4/25/01
to

"Furplay" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3AE751E4...@radiks.net...
> First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
> that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
warrant.
>
> What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
> off of your mattress?
>
> Let's leave this "Judge Dredd" mentality in the comix and B movies,
ng'kay?

Depends on how long you continue to resist . . .


>
>
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_a36ed66

Bernie Hanssen

unread,
Apr 25, 2001, 10:29:34 PM4/25/01
to

Mark Neglay wrote:

> Who are *they*?
>
> Do they fly black helicopters?

They are John Ashcroft's jack-booted government thugs. They violated the civil
rights of children last year under Janet Reno, now Ashcroft has declared open
season on the American Motorist. All you have to do is drive a car.

N9NWO

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 2:31:36 AM4/26/01
to
This sounds like the paranoia that the Leftist used
have during the '60s and '70s when they were afraid
that the FBI was coming for them. And much like
the militia movement being paranoid of the UN, BATF
and black helicopters (those losers did not know the
Army had a new helicopter, the Blackhawk).

: First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare


: that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
warrant.
:
: What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
: off of your mattress?
:
: Let's leave this "Judge Dredd" mentality in the comix and B movies,
ng'kay?
:
:
http://www.accessatlanta.com/partners/ajc/epaper/editions/today/news_a36ed66
a103302301071.html

:
: --

Furplay

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 3:07:36 AM4/26/01
to
Captain Compassion wrote:
>
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:38:28 -0500, Furplay <mhi...@radiks.net>
> wrote:
>
> >First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
> >that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without warrant.
> >
> You can be arrested without a warrent if you are in the porcess of
> comitting a crime.
>

Is not wearing a seatbelt actually worthy of being cuffed and sent to
prison? Are'nt the penetentaries overflowing from all the unwinnable
"war on drugs"?

Furplay

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 3:16:48 AM4/26/01
to

If you can afford to drive anything at all, considerring the way
Dubcula's buddies in the oil industry are blatantly gouging prices
higher than the International Space Station.

N9NWO

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 8:20:16 AM4/26/01
to
: > >First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare

: > >that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
warrant.
: > >
: > You can be arrested without a warrent if you are in the porcess of
: > comitting a crime.
: >
:
: Is not wearing a seatbelt actually worthy of being cuffed and sent to
: prison? Are'nt the penetentaries overflowing from all the unwinnable
: "war on drugs"?

The prisons would be full anyway. Drugs are only the symptom
of deeper problems within society.


Mark Neglay

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 9:00:25 AM4/26/01
to
So Ashcroft is leading a group of Jackbooted thugs around that has members
on the Supreme Court, members that worked under Janet Reno, along with
members of State and local police authorities?

Bernie Hanssen <mrte...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3AE7880E...@bellsouth.net...

Furplay

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 11:14:14 AM4/26/01
to

And yet, those "deeper problems" are being addressed by just tossing
them in with rapists and serial killers. Some treatment program, huh?

The Night Stalker

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 12:21:57 PM4/26/01
to
You mean, all you have to do is break the law and endanger your children
too. Ashcroft has nothing to do with the thousands of municipalities that
enforce their states laws on seatbelts.

Stalker Steve


Bernie Hanssen <mrte...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:3AE7880E...@bellsouth.net...
>
>

N9NWO

unread,
Apr 26, 2001, 11:53:52 PM4/26/01
to
: > : > >First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they

declare
: > : > >that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested
without
: > warrant.
: > : > >
: > : > You can be arrested without a warrent if you are in the porcess of
: > : > comitting a crime.
: > : >
: > :
: > : Is not wearing a seatbelt actually worthy of being cuffed and sent to
: > : prison? Are'nt the penetentaries overflowing from all the unwinnable
: > : "war on drugs"?
: >
: > The prisons would be full anyway. Drugs are only the symptom
: > of deeper problems within society.
:
: And yet, those "deeper problems" are being addressed by just tossing
: them in with rapists and serial killers. Some treatment program, huh?

Actually, in my state at least, there is treatment. But then most
people do wind up in prison usually have either mental or emotional
illness. We are using our prisons as psych wards.

And rapists and serial murders are people with deep emotional
illness. They are usually acting out scenes from their childhood.
Many states are building special prisons just to treat them.


elcam2

unread,
Apr 27, 2001, 4:24:29 PM4/27/01
to

"Furplay" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
news:3AE751E4...@radiks.net...
> First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
> that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
warrant.
>
> What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
> off of your mattress?

LOL! When I was a kid my mother wouldn't let us tear the tags off pillows
and mattresses because the tag said "It is against the law to remove this
tag." Because of that, I was an adult before I thought about it and
realized the tag was meant for the retailer.

I'm extremely disappointed in SCOTUS for this decision. The police already
act like the SS in some places. Souter wrote the majority opinion which
surprised me. Sandra O'Connor dissented which was nice to see. If we can
be handcuffed, arrested, brought to jail, frisked, and searched over such a
minor infraction as not wearing a seat belt - do we really have any privacy
left? I know that Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist don't think the right to
privacy exists in the Constitution. What an unfortunate road we're
traveling down.

Eileen #948

D.G. Porter

unread,
Apr 27, 2001, 2:27:58 PM4/27/01
to
Should be SCROTUS -- Supreme Court Reactionaries of the US...

elcam2 wrote:
>
> "Furplay" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE751E4...@radiks.net...
> > First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
> > that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
> warrant.
> >
> > What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
> > off of your mattress?

"States rights" when it's labor unions or the ADA, "Federal supremacy"
when it's medical MJ. Yeah, right, Tony, we believed you in '86 when
you said "I have no agenda"...

chibiabos

unread,
Apr 27, 2001, 6:24:17 PM4/27/01
to
In article <tejc0is...@news.supernews.com>, elcam2
<elc...@email.msn.com> wrote:

> "Furplay" <mhi...@radiks.net> wrote in message
> news:3AE751E4...@radiks.net...
> > First they declare that some votes can be ignored, and now they declare
> > that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
> warrant.
> >
> > What's next? 10-25 for jaywalking? Lethal injection for tearing the tag
> > off of your mattress?
>
> LOL! When I was a kid my mother wouldn't let us tear the tags off pillows
> and mattresses because the tag said "It is against the law to remove this
> tag." Because of that, I was an adult before I thought about it and
> realized the tag was meant for the retailer.
>
> I'm extremely disappointed in SCOTUS for this decision. The police already
> act like the SS in some places. Souter wrote the majority opinion which
> surprised me. Sandra O'Connor dissented which was nice to see. If we can
> be handcuffed, arrested, brought to jail, frisked, and searched over such a
> minor infraction as not wearing a seat belt - do we really have any privacy
> left? I know that Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist don't think the right to
> privacy exists in the Constitution. What an unfortunate road we're
> traveling down.

Sadly, this decision didn't change anything. Police already have the
power to arrest you for breaking almost any law. Most LEAs exercise
that power only when NOT doing so presents a clear and imminent danger
to the public. That is, they have some discretion and generally
exercise it wisely. The above case before SCOTUS challenged that power,
specifically the power to arrest & detain for misdemeanors. SCOTUS, far
from making new law (as has been suggested by most of the news reports
about this decision), instead elected to let the law remain as it was
before. In effect, they took no action.

I guess that's the definition of "conservative," though.

-chib

--
I'm counting on you lord, please don't let me down
Prove that you love me and buy the next round
--Janis Joplin, "Mercedes Benz"

Furplay

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 1:11:42 AM4/28/01
to
N9NWO wrote:
>
>
> Actually, in my state at least, there is treatment. But then most
> people do wind up in prison usually have either mental or emotional
> illness. We are using our prisons as psych wards.
>

No, they're being used as warehouses and landfillls.



> And rapists and serial murders are people with deep emotional
> illness. They are usually acting out scenes from their childhood.
> Many states are building special prisons just to treat them.

Funny way you describe the word "treat" there, pal. You make it sound
like they're actually being cared for instead of being stuffed five to a
cell and knocked around 24/7.

Al Klein

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 1:57:48 AM4/28/01
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2001 13:24:29 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

>I'm extremely disappointed in SCOTUS for this decision. The police already
>act like the SS in some places. Souter wrote the majority opinion which
>surprised me. Sandra O'Connor dissented which was nice to see. If we can
>be handcuffed, arrested, brought to jail, frisked, and searched over such a
>minor infraction as not wearing a seat belt - do we really have any privacy
>left?

I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
result in incarceration.

BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)
--
Al - Unnumbered Atheist #infinity
aklein at villagenet dot com

N9NWO

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 2:11:48 AM4/28/01
to
: > Actually, in my state at least, there is treatment. But then most

: > people do wind up in prison usually have either mental or emotional
: > illness. We are using our prisons as psych wards.
: >
:
: No, they're being used as warehouses and landfillls.
:
: > And rapists and serial murders are people with deep emotional
: > illness. They are usually acting out scenes from their childhood.
: > Many states are building special prisons just to treat them.
:
: Funny way you describe the word "treat" there, pal. You make it sound
: like they're actually being cared for instead of being stuffed five to a
: cell and knocked around 24/7.

That is a super-max or SHU (level 5) prison. They use that for
violent prisoners. There is treatment for those who are willing to
use it.


Furplay

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 3:21:53 AM4/28/01
to

Like...............?

SnowDog

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 9:50:54 AM4/28/01
to
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:vvmketghjuskk8rcg...@4ax.com...

> I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
> summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
> matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
> result in incarceration.

Any time a cop prevents from going where you are going, or made to be in a
place you don't want to be, you are under arrest, even if it's only for a
matter of a few seconds.

But when you're cuffed and brought to jail, that is a custodial arrest.
Common law since before the writing of the 4th Amendment - common law on
which the 4th Amendment is based - reserves the power of a peace officer to
arrest people only when they have are are likely about to engage in a breach
of peace. Not wearing your seatbelt is not a breach of peace, therefore,
not an offense for which one can be jailed under laws older than our
country.

> BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
> liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)

It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
unreasonably seized. Of course, when you have been arrested, your privacy
is gone.

Read this, the author explains it much better than I do.
http://www.cato.org//pubs/legalbriefs/atwatervlago.pdf

--
"No his mind is not for rent - To any god or government"
- Peart/Dubois "Tom Sawyer"

Posted Via Usenet.com Premium Usenet Newsgroup Services
----------------------------------------------------------
** SPEED ** RETENTION ** COMPLETION ** ANONYMITY **
----------------------------------------------------------
http://www.usenet.com

SnowDog

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 10:10:41 AM4/28/01
to
"OrionCA" <ori...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:7hrket05henhagv2e...@4ax.com...

> >BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
> >liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)
>

> Two reasons, really:
>
> 1) They're pissed as hell that the USSC overruled the FSSC's effort to
> resume recounts in the '00 election,

That certainly doesn't apply to me. I agreed with the SC on that one.

> 2) Two, perhaps 3 Justices are planning to retire in the next couple
> of years which means President Bush, not Boy Blunder or his sidekick
> Dull Boy, will get to nominate their replacements.

I would rather have Bush appointing them than Gore. I would rather have
Harry Browne appoing them than either, but that isn't going to happen.

> There's a 3rd, derivative reason: Any anger or hatred they can whip
> up against the USSC will help keep the troops motivated between now
> and 2002 which gives them a better chance to reclaim control of
> Congress. But that's the underlying theme behind ALL their hate
> campaigns against President Bush so it's nothing new.

Maybe for some. I don't know.

Here's why I am unhappy with the decision.

The 4th Amendment protected us from unreasonable search and seizure. Taking
someone to jail for not having a seatbelt on is an unreasonable seizure.
It's really as plain and simple as that.
http://www.cato.org//pubs/legalbriefs/atwatervlago.pdf

As an added bonus, I am not stuck in the unenviable position of agreeing
with that pathetic liberal nanny-state loving David Souter, as you are.
Doesn't it tell you something when you find yourself in agreement with him?

> - They howled in rage when the USSC didn't take an activist role in
> overturning state laws regarding arresting a negligent motorist.

That wouldn't have been activist. That would have been the proper ruling
under a strict interpretation of the Constitution.

> Bipolar of the kooks, don't you think? Except for the underlying
> message: "DEMOCRATS, GOOOOOD. REPUBLICANS, BAAAAAAD." That appears
> to be the sum total of their political agendae; to convince as many
> voters as possible, "DEMOCRATS, GOOOOOOD. REPUBLICANS, BAAAAAD."

I have to say, it appears to me finally that both are bad. A plague on both
your houses.

It would seem that it doesn't really matter who is in power, those who
support the party in power are going to back ever thing that happens during
that time, while those that support the other party are going to be against
it. There are others though, affiliated to neither party, that are going to
call it as they see it. And decisions like this are going to swell their
numbers.

Dana

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 12:59:48 PM4/28/01
to

"SnowDog" <sno...@tobesofhades.org> wrote in message
news:3aeac...@Usenet.com...

> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> news:vvmketghjuskk8rcg...@4ax.com...
> > I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
> > summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
> > matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
> > result in incarceration.
>
> Any time a cop prevents from going where you are going, or made to be in a
> place you don't want to be, you are under arrest, even if it's only for a
> matter of a few seconds.
>
> But when you're cuffed and brought to jail, that is a custodial arrest.
> Common law since before the writing of the 4th Amendment - common law on
> which the 4th Amendment is based - reserves the power of a peace officer
to
> arrest people only when they have are are likely about to engage in a
breach
> of peace. Not wearing your seatbelt is not a breach of peace, therefore,
> not an offense for which one can be jailed under laws older than our
> country.

WRONG even British common law allowed police to arrest people.
And the Atwater decision did no damage to the 4th Amendment.


>
> > BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
> > liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)
>
> It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
> unreasonably seized. Of course, when you have been arrested, your privacy
> is gone.

And Atwater was not unreasonably seized, so what is your point

Dana

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 12:59:48 PM4/28/01
to

"SnowDog" <sno...@tobesofhades.org> wrote in message
news:3aeac...@Usenet.com...
> "Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> news:vvmketghjuskk8rcg...@4ax.com...
> > I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
> > summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
> > matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
> > result in incarceration.
>
> Any time a cop prevents from going where you are going, or made to be in a
> place you don't want to be, you are under arrest, even if it's only for a
> matter of a few seconds.
>
> But when you're cuffed and brought to jail, that is a custodial arrest.
> Common law since before the writing of the 4th Amendment - common law on
> which the 4th Amendment is based - reserves the power of a peace officer
to
> arrest people only when they have are are likely about to engage in a
breach
> of peace. Not wearing your seatbelt is not a breach of peace, therefore,
> not an offense for which one can be jailed under laws older than our
> country.

WRONG even British common law allowed police to arrest people.


And the Atwater decision did no damage to the 4th Amendment.
>

> > BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
> > liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)
>
> It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
> unreasonably seized. Of course, when you have been arrested, your privacy
> is gone.

And Atwater was not unreasonably seized, so what is your point

SnowDog

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 1:52:49 PM4/28/01
to
"Dana" <raf...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3aeaf...@news2.meganetnews.com...

> WRONG even British common law allowed police to arrest people.
> And the Atwater decision did no damage to the 4th Amendment.

No, you are wrong.
The common law prohibited the warrantless arrest of an individual for a
minor offense unless it involved a breach of the peace. A "peace officer"
at common law had "no power of arresting without warrant except when a
breach of the peace has been committed in his presence or there is
reasonable ground for supposing that a breach of the peace is about to be
committed or renewed in his presence." Halsbury's Laws of England, vol. 9,
part III, 612 (quoted in Carroll v. United States, 267 U.S. 132, 156
(1925)).
http://www.cato.org//pubs/legalbriefs/atwatervlago.pdf

> And Atwater was not unreasonably seized, so what is your point

Look. I know this is difficult, but try to think this out a little bit.

Let's say the direction toward gun control continues, and soon we find
ourselves no able to legally own a gun if we have been arrested. You may
foolishly like to tell yourself that will never happen, and it is your right
to be a fool. But it is the logical direction that the Rosie O'Donnells of
the world are pushing us toward.

Now, you're driving your car along, and Stalker Stever pulls you over
because you didn't use your turn signal soon enough before turning into your
driveway. You just broke the law. Stalker Steve happens to get his kicks
arresting people who break the law, so that's what happens to you.
When they let you out of jail an hour or so later, they escort you home and
confiscate all of your firearms, because the law is, criminals like you that
have been arrested are a danger to themselves and to society, therefore, you
cannot own a firearm.

How much are you going to enjoy the pathetic future into which you are
gladly hurtling toward?

So go ahead and and waste your time spamming this newsgroup with endless
groups of posts lamenting how the liberals are trying to make this into a
Nanny State. Just remember I told you first, they are doing it with your
blessing.

Al Klein

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 6:05:07 PM4/28/01
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:50:54 -0400, "SnowDog"
<sno...@tobesofhades.org> posted in alt.atheism:

>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:vvmketghjuskk8rcg...@4ax.com...

>> I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
>> summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
>> matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
>> result in incarceration.

>Any time a cop prevents from going where you are going, or made to be in a
>place you don't want to be, you are under arrest, even if it's only for a
>matter of a few seconds.

>But when you're cuffed and brought to jail, that is a custodial arrest.
>Common law since before the writing of the 4th Amendment - common law on
>which the 4th Amendment is based - reserves the power of a peace officer to
>arrest people only when they have are are likely about to engage in a breach
>of peace. Not wearing your seatbelt is not a breach of peace, therefore,
>not an offense for which one can be jailed under laws older than our
>country.

Unless otherwise specifically stated in the law.

>> BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
>> liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)

>It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
>unreasonably seized.

That's not what I asked Eileen.

SnowDog

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 6:37:29 PM4/28/01
to
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:qofmetsvtcpf9lrqd...@4ax.com...

> Unless otherwise specifically stated in the law.

The 4th Amendment doesn't limit its protection that way. No law that
contradicts it is valid, thanks to the 14th.

N9NWO

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 7:48:59 PM4/28/01
to
: > : > Actually, in my state at least, there is treatment. But then most

Our prisons have a full time, on staff counselors who assigned to
each group, usually about 50 offenders. There are various therapies
to help them deal with early childhood abuse plus treatment for drug
and alcohol abuse. These can vary from group counseling to individual
secessions.

I am not sure what you are fishing for. But these are the standard
treatments that one can get on the outside but with the funding to
make sure that there is adequate services for each offender. It is
much better than what most people can afford.


Furplay

unread,
Apr 28, 2001, 10:07:52 PM4/28/01
to
N9NWO wrote:
>
> : >
> : > That is a super-max or SHU (level 5) prison. They use that for
> : > violent prisoners. There is treatment for those who are willing to
> : > use it.
> :
> : Like...............?
>
> Our prisons have a full time, on staff counselors who assigned to
> each group, usually about 50 offenders. There are various therapies
> to help them deal with early childhood abuse plus treatment for drug
> and alcohol abuse. These can vary from group counseling to individual
> secessions.
>

I hope you're not on any student loans, because from all that weed
you're smoking, Dubcula's gonna defund ya for sure.

Al Klein

unread,
Apr 29, 2001, 12:21:05 AM4/29/01
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 18:37:29 -0400, "SnowDog"
<sno...@tobesofhades.org> posted in alt.atheism:

>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:qofmetsvtcpf9lrqd...@4ax.com...

>> Unless otherwise specifically stated in the law.

>The 4th Amendment doesn't limit its protection that way. No law that
>contradicts it is valid, thanks to the 14th.

The 4th doesn't state that the several states can't pass laws that
carry physical arrest and detention as a consequence of violating
them. The SCOTUS has decided that arrest for violation of the law -
any law - is not unreasonable search and seizure.

Don't complain to me - I think SCOTUS was dead wrong. I just
commented on how it is, not on how I think it should be.

elcam2

unread,
Apr 29, 2001, 4:40:33 AM4/29/01
to
"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:qofmetsvtcpf9lrqd...@4ax.com...

> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:50:54 -0400, "SnowDog"
> <sno...@tobesofhades.org> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> >news:vvmketghjuskk8rcg...@4ax.com...

Al - I didn't see your original message to me.


>
> >> I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
> >> summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
> >> matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
> >> result in incarceration.

If that is the default case, then why was a Supreme Court decision on this
necessary?

>
> >Any time a cop prevents from going where you are going, or made to be in
a
> >place you don't want to be, you are under arrest, even if it's only for a
> >matter of a few seconds.
>
> >But when you're cuffed and brought to jail, that is a custodial arrest.
> >Common law since before the writing of the 4th Amendment - common law on
> >which the 4th Amendment is based - reserves the power of a peace officer
to

> >arrest people only when they have are likely about to engage in a


breach
> >of peace. Not wearing your seatbelt is not a breach of peace, therefore,
> >not an offense for which one can be jailed under laws older than our
> >country.
>
> Unless otherwise specifically stated in the law.
>
> >> BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
> >> liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)
>
> >It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
> >unreasonably seized.
>
> That's not what I asked Eileen.

"Article IV:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;
and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
persons or things to be seized."

In my book being hand cuffed, frisked, brought to jail and locked up for not
wearing a seat belt is unreasonable search and seizure and an invasion of my
privacy. Don't the words "secure in their persons" speak of privacy? What
else can that mean?

I'm beginning to feel like in my sleep I've been transported to another
country and everyone is just pretending this is the United States.

Eileen #948

N9NWO

unread,
Apr 29, 2001, 10:47:17 AM4/29/01
to
: > : > That is a super-max or SHU (level 5) prison. They use that for
: > : > violent prisoners. There is treatment for those who are willing to
: > : > use it.
: > :
: > : Like...............?
: >
: > Our prisons have a full time, on staff counselors who assigned to
: > each group, usually about 50 offenders. There are various therapies
: > to help them deal with early childhood abuse plus treatment for drug
: > and alcohol abuse. These can vary from group counseling to individual
: > secessions.
: >
:
: I hope you're not on any student loans, because from all that weed
: you're smoking, Dubcula's gonna defund ya for sure.

No felon should the same privileges as a full citizen. If you lose
your gun rights then you should have the right to vote, the right
to run for public office, the right to hold a professional license (that
is to be a lawyer, a teacher, a CPA, a doctor, or any other trusted
position that is licensed by the state). College is a privilege, no a
right. And felons are not fit to protect themselves let a lone to defend
their country.

I would also mark their driver's license that they are restricted citizens.
And I would mandate that everyone over the age 16 have either a drivers
license or an ID issued by their state's BMV that would show their
citizenship
status. That way we would have a digital photo and finger prints of all US
adults on file.


Dramar Ankalle

unread,
Apr 30, 2001, 12:16:09 PM4/30/01
to

<ah...@no-spam-to-world.std.com> wrote in message
news:sod8zki...@world.std.com...

> >>>>> N9NWO writes:
>
> >> > : > That is a super-max or SHU (level 5) prison. They use that
for
> >> > : > violent prisoners. There is treatment for those who are
willing to
> >> > : > use it.
> >> > :
> >> > : Like...............?
> >> >
> >> > Our prisons have a full time, on staff counselors who assigned to
> >> > each group, usually about 50 offenders. There are various
therapies
> >> > to help them deal with early childhood abuse plus treatment for
drug
> >> > and alcohol abuse. These can vary from group counseling to
individual
> >> > secessions.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I hope you're not on any student loans, because from all that weed
> >> you're smoking, Dubcula's gonna defund ya for sure.
>
> N9NWO> No felon should the same privileges as a full citizen. If you
lose
> N9NWO> your gun rights then you should have the right to vote, the
right
> N9NWO> to run for public office, the right to hold a professional
license (that
> N9NWO> is to be a lawyer, a teacher, a CPA, a doctor, or any other
trusted
> N9NWO> position that is licensed by the state). College is a
privilege, no a
> N9NWO> right. And felons are not fit to protect themselves let a lone
to defend
> N9NWO> their country.
>
> N9NWO> I would also mark their driver's license that they are
restricted citizens.
> N9NWO> And I would mandate that everyone over the age 16 have either a
drivers
> N9NWO> license or an ID issued by their state's BMV that would show
their
> N9NWO> citizenship
> N9NWO> status. That way we would have a digital photo and finger
prints of all US
> N9NWO> adults on file.
>
> All hail the holy state. Big brother is coming.
>
>

There should be no confusion for anyone who wonders what is going to happen
to this country.You ``wish-it" into the mindspace, you deal with the
consequences.Maybe an idiot with a name like N9NWO is serious, but chances
are that it isnt.
Remember why we were *allowed* to become the greatest nation ever, and how
easy it can be taken away.
Am I kidding?

13395-083
``In God We Trust, All Others Pay Cash"


Al Klein

unread,
Apr 30, 2001, 8:27:06 PM4/30/01
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:40:33 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:qofmetsvtcpf9lrqd...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2001 09:50:54 -0400, "SnowDog"
>> <sno...@tobesofhades.org> posted in alt.atheism:

>> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>> >news:vvmketghjuskk8rcg...@4ax.com...

>Al - I didn't see your original message to me.

>> >> I don't know the wording of the law in all states, Eileen, but in NY,
>> >> summonses are only issued in lieu of arrest. Any violation of law, no
>> >> matter how slight, that can result in a summons can also - legally -
>> >> result in incarceration.

>If that is the default case, then why was a Supreme Court decision on this
>necessary?

As I said, it's the default in NY. I have no idea what the law is in
- was it Texas?

>> >Any time a cop prevents from going where you are going, or made to be in a
>> >place you don't want to be, you are under arrest, even if it's only for a
>> >matter of a few seconds.

>> >But when you're cuffed and brought to jail, that is a custodial arrest.
>> >Common law since before the writing of the 4th Amendment - common law on
>> >which the 4th Amendment is based - reserves the power of a peace officer to
>> >arrest people only when they have are likely about to engage in a breach
>> >of peace. Not wearing your seatbelt is not a breach of peace, therefore,
>> >not an offense for which one can be jailed under laws older than our
>> >country.

>> Unless otherwise specifically stated in the law.

>> >> BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
>> >> liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)

>> >It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
>> >unreasonably seized.

>> That's not what I asked Eileen.

>"Article IV:

>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
>effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated;
>and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or
>affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
>persons or things to be seized."

>In my book being hand cuffed, frisked, brought to jail and locked up for not
>wearing a seat belt is unreasonable search and seizure

Which was the reason the case went all the way to SCOTUS.

> and an invasion of my privacy. Don't the words "secure in their persons" speak of privacy?

I don't think SCOTUS has ever ruled on that directly.

>What else can that mean?

Not having one's person violated (unreasonable body search) without a
warrant or other reasonable means. IOW, exactly the same as "secure
in their ... houses, papers and effects". It's explained in the
second clause.

>I'm beginning to feel like in my sleep I've been transported to another
>country and everyone is just pretending this is the United States.

It's getting that way, isn't it? Your property can be seized and sold
before any hearing takes place, if the government maintains that the
property meets certain requirements. Then, if it's found at trial
that they were wrong, they say "oh, well", and you get to go home.
But hasn't the IRS been doing that for decades?

elcam2

unread,
May 1, 2001, 4:08:06 PM5/1/01
to

"chibiabos" <chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:270420011525486294%chib...@NOSPAM.earthlink.net...

> In article <tejc0is...@news.supernews.com>, elcam2
> <elc...@email.msn.com> wrote:

[snip]

> > I'm extremely disappointed in SCOTUS for this decision. The police
already
> > act like the SS in some places. Souter wrote the majority opinion which
> > surprised me. Sandra O'Connor dissented which was nice to see. If we
can
> > be handcuffed, arrested, brought to jail, frisked, and searched over
such a
> > minor infraction as not wearing a seat belt - do we really have any
privacy
> > left? I know that Scalia, Thomas and Rhenquist don't think the right to
> > privacy exists in the Constitution. What an unfortunate road we're
> > traveling down.
>
> Sadly, this decision didn't change anything. Police already have the
> power to arrest you for breaking almost any law. Most LEAs exercise
> that power only when NOT doing so presents a clear and imminent danger
> to the public. That is, they have some discretion and generally
> exercise it wisely. The above case before SCOTUS challenged that power,
> specifically the power to arrest & detain for misdemeanors. SCOTUS, far
> from making new law (as has been suggested by most of the news reports
> about this decision), instead elected to let the law remain as it was
> before. In effect, they took no action.

If they wanted to take no action they would have not heard the case. In
that way, everything would have stayed the same. Even though it's true that
the police could always arrest for a misdemeanor, it wasn't carved in stone
and it, as you mention, fell into the realm of discretionary. While the
SCOTUS ruling didn't take it out of the discretionary, a difference is now
in place. It is now a solid, nationwide law. Not all the police are good
and this law has paved the way for the most aggressive and abusive officers
to impose their power mongering ways on the least of the law breakers. It
is license for the police to act badly, and that is where the change, though
subtle, has occurred.

In times past, the majority of the public would have expected the police
officer to help Mrs. Atwater, not cuff her an haul her off to jail. It's a
sad statement that this is still not the case.

> I guess that's the definition of "conservative," though.

Or 'regressive.'

> -chib

elcam2

unread,
May 1, 2001, 6:35:21 PM5/1/01
to

"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:9d0retctdk23asgkd...@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:40:33 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >> >> BTW, what has being arrested to do with privacy rights? (I'm a
> >> >> liberal, so I'm not fighting you on this.)
>
> >> >It's not about privacy per se, it's about the your right against being
> >> >unreasonably seized.
>
> >> That's not what I asked Eileen.
>
> >"Article IV:
>
> >The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,
and
> >effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be
violated;
> >and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath
or
> >affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched and the
> >persons or things to be seized."
>
> >In my book being hand cuffed, frisked, brought to jail and locked up for
not
> >wearing a seat belt is unreasonable search and seizure
>
> Which was the reason the case went all the way to SCOTUS.
>
> > and an invasion of my privacy. Don't the words "secure in their
persons" speak of privacy?
>
> I don't think SCOTUS has ever ruled on that directly.

If any court would say that 'secure in their persons' means something other
than privacy, we will have reached new heights of doublespeak.


>
> >What else can that mean?
>
> Not having one's person violated (unreasonable body search) without a
> warrant or other reasonable means. IOW, exactly the same as "secure
> in their ... houses, papers and effects". It's explained in the
> second clause.

So, you agree with me?


>
> >I'm beginning to feel like in my sleep I've been transported to another
> >country and everyone is just pretending this is the United States.
>
> It's getting that way, isn't it? Your property can be seized and sold
> before any hearing takes place, if the government maintains that the
> property meets certain requirements. Then, if it's found at trial
> that they were wrong, they say "oh, well", and you get to go home.

That's wrong too.

> But hasn't the IRS been doing that for decades?

The IRS is an entity unto itself. There are no controls, no checks and
balances as in other areas of government. There are some true horror
stories that have come out of the way the IRS deals with citizens.
Clinton's administration changed the way the IRS operates to try to avoid
those problems. Even so, the IRS is not under the umbrella of regular law
enforcement.

In any case, two wrongs don't make a right.

Eileen #948

Al Klein

unread,
May 1, 2001, 10:15:36 PM5/1/01
to
On Tue, 1 May 2001 15:35:21 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
>news:9d0retctdk23asgkd...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:40:33 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
>> posted in alt.atheism:

>> > and an invasion of my privacy. Don't the words "secure in their persons" speak of privacy?

>> I don't think SCOTUS has ever ruled on that directly.

>If any court would say that 'secure in their persons' means something other
>than privacy, we will have reached new heights of doublespeak.

>> >What else can that mean?

>> Not having one's person violated (unreasonable body search) without a
>> warrant or other reasonable means. IOW, exactly the same as "secure
>> in their ... houses, papers and effects". It's explained in the
>> second clause.

>So, you agree with me?

Not exactly. I think our definitions of 'privacy' are different. I
don't consider being arrested to be an invasion of privacy.

>> >I'm beginning to feel like in my sleep I've been transported to another
>> >country and everyone is just pretending this is the United States.

>> It's getting that way, isn't it? Your property can be seized and sold
>> before any hearing takes place, if the government maintains that the
>> property meets certain requirements. Then, if it's found at trial
>> that they were wrong, they say "oh, well", and you get to go home.

>That's wrong too.

Oh, definitely.

>> But hasn't the IRS been doing that for decades?

>The IRS is an entity unto itself.

Isn't that wrong too? :)
--

elcam2

unread,
May 3, 2001, 12:44:28 AM5/3/01
to

"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:mgruetgsoo0i9nki0...@4ax.com...

> On Tue, 1 May 2001 15:35:21 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
> >news:9d0retctdk23asgkd...@4ax.com...
> >> On Sun, 29 Apr 2001 01:40:33 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
> >> posted in alt.atheism:
>
> >> > and an invasion of my privacy. Don't the words "secure in their
persons" speak of privacy?
>
> >> I don't think SCOTUS has ever ruled on that directly.
>
> >If any court would say that 'secure in their persons' means something
other
> >than privacy, we will have reached new heights of doublespeak.
>
> >> >What else can that mean?
>
> >> Not having one's person violated (unreasonable body search) without a
> >> warrant or other reasonable means. IOW, exactly the same as "secure
> >> in their ... houses, papers and effects". It's explained in the
> >> second clause.
>
> >So, you agree with me?
>
> Not exactly. I think our definitions of 'privacy' are different. I
> don't consider being arrested to be an invasion of privacy.

Let me try to explain. I consider my person to be private. That fact that
frisking goes on in tandem with arrests is the invasion of privacy. The
idea of the police having the liberty to run their hands up and down my body
and through my crotch for a stinking misdemeanor makes me livid.

> >> >I'm beginning to feel like in my sleep I've been transported to
another
> >> >country and everyone is just pretending this is the United States.
>
> >> It's getting that way, isn't it? Your property can be seized and sold
> >> before any hearing takes place, if the government maintains that the
> >> property meets certain requirements. Then, if it's found at trial
> >> that they were wrong, they say "oh, well", and you get to go home.
>
> >That's wrong too.
>
> Oh, definitely.
>
> >> But hasn't the IRS been doing that for decades?
>
> >The IRS is an entity unto itself.
>
> Isn't that wrong too? :)

Of course. But we can take on all the ills of the US in one post. :-)

Eileen #948

Al Klein

unread,
May 2, 2001, 11:40:27 PM5/2/01
to
On Wed, 2 May 2001 21:44:28 -0700, "elcam2" <elc...@email.msn.com>
posted in alt.atheism:

>"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message

>news:mgruetgsoo0i9nki0...@4ax.com...

>> Not exactly. I think our definitions of 'privacy' are different. I
>> don't consider being arrested to be an invasion of privacy.

>Let me try to explain. I consider my person to be private. That fact that
>frisking goes on in tandem with arrests is the invasion of privacy. The
>idea of the police having the liberty to run their hands up and down my body
>and through my crotch for a stinking misdemeanor makes me livid.

Eileen, that's almost never done. When it is done, it's a female
officer who does it and an invasive search has to have probable cause.
Most misdemeanor arrests involve turning your pockets inside out, and
handing over anything that can be used as a weapon, to escape, or to
injure yourself. Even some felony arrests don't involve strip
searches.

elcam2

unread,
May 3, 2001, 7:19:10 PM5/3/01
to

"Al Klein" <ruk...@pern.org> wrote in message
news:hok1ftkujm51apcv7...@4ax.com...

I'm not talking about strip searches. I was talking about the patting down
that's routinely done looking for a hidden gun. The police (I believe it
was a man) did that to Mrs. Atwater who brought the suit. It would only
make a slight difference to me if the officer were a woman in this case.
It certainly wouldn't make it acceptable.

Eileen #948

someone

unread,
May 10, 2001, 12:27:25 AM5/10/01
to

...
> First they declare that some votes can be ignored,

If you mean those overseas military ballots that didn't get counted because
they didn't have a postmark, yeah that was a bummer. California had close to
a million. It would have put Bush way over the top.

and now they declare
> that people who don't buckle up can get handcuffed and arrested without
warrant.

You thank all the Ralph Naders of the world.

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages