Glock Talk

Glock Talk (http://glocktalk.com/forums/index.php)
-   The Okie Corral (http://glocktalk.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=29)
-   -   3rd, yes 3rd, amendment case..... (http://glocktalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1494388)

.264 magnum 07-08-2013 14:57

3rd, yes 3rd, amendment case.....
 
http://politics.foxnews.mobi/quickPa...03.proteus.fma


Hopefully, that link works.


I hope this guy wins millions and jobs are lost.

HerrGlock 07-08-2013 15:00

Yeah, this one's something to watch. One of these will work.

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2013/07/05/...n-nevada-case/

http://now.msn.com/anthony-mitchell-...ent-violations

http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

ArtyGuy 07-08-2013 15:08

While I don't agree with the arrest, I don't see how they are going to argue it is in violation of the 3rd Amendment. Police aren't Soldier-- it' my understanding the reason for the amendment was for something very different. It'll be interesting to see how the lawyer(s) argue it.

2bgop 07-08-2013 15:09

Cop haters!!!!

Sorry, just wanted to get in before they shut you down.

TBO 07-08-2013 15:25

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtyGuy (Post 20440173)
While I don't agree with the arrest, I don't see how they are going to argue it is in violation of the 3rd Amendment. Police aren't Soldier-- it' my understanding the reason for the amendment was for something very different. It'll be interesting to see how the lawyer(s) argue it.

IMHO, they will argue that police = government = what the 3rd is about.

Patchman 07-08-2013 15:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtyGuy (Post 20440173)
While I don't agree with the arrest, I don't see how they are going to argue it is in violation of the 3rd Amendment. Police aren't Soldier-- it' my understanding the reason for the amendment was for something very different. It'll be interesting to see how the lawyer(s) argue it.

Militarization of the police. Surplussed military equipment. More LEOs have military background. Rank structure. LE wear uniforms, including combat styled boots. Use of military terminology. DHS getting delivery of 2.7 billion rounds of small arms ammo since January 1 of this year. Expanded/common use of blue coloured roof lights on police cars indicating merger of UN practices (traditionally, U.S. LE/first reponders only used red and white lights).

Probably many more indicia that I missed.

crazymoose 07-08-2013 15:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 20440235)
Militarization of the police. Surplussed military equipment. More LEOs have military background. Rank structure. LE wear uniforms. Use of military terminology. DHS getting delivery of 2.7 billion rounds of small arms ammo since January 1 of this year. Expanded/common use of blue coloured roof lights on police cars indicative of adopting European/UN practices (traditionally, U.S. LE only used red and white lights).

Probably many more indicia that I missed.

Not going to weigh in on whether I think it's a good or bad thing, but there is a definite trend toward militarization of the police forces going on nationwide.

When I was a kid, cops most places looked basically like civilians in police uniforms and carried shotguns and revolvers. Now, as you said, most of them wear military haircuts and are issued AR's, and just about every department either has its own SWAT/SRT team or participates in a regional joint group.

Syclone0538 07-08-2013 15:37

Breaking and entering, assault, and kidnapping under color of law?

PIMking 07-08-2013 15:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by ArtyGuy (Post 20440173)
While I don't agree with the arrest, I don't see how they are going to argue it is in violation of the 3rd Amendment. Police aren't Soldier-- it' my understanding the reason for the amendment was for something very different. It'll be interesting to see how the lawyer(s) argue it.

police are not soldiers but they're government employees...

kenpoprofessor 07-08-2013 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by PIMking (Post 20440264)
police are not soldiers but they're government employees...

So what you're saying is they're civilians like everyone else :wow: ?

If they're not subject to the UCMJ, they are civilians, no matter what dictionary tell you they're not.

If there's a murder on base, they always say "Oh, we have to let the "civilian agency" do their job" .

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day


Clyde

Jose the carwash man 07-08-2013 15:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazymoose (Post 20440248)
Not going to weigh in on whether I think it's a good or bad thing, but there is a definite trend toward militarization of the police forces going on nationwide.

When I was a kid, cops most places looked basically like civilians in police uniforms and carried shotguns and revolvers. Now, as you said, most of them wear military haircuts and are issued AR's, and just about every department either has its own SWAT/SRT team or participates in a regional joint group.

I think it is that and the "blue wall" that makes cops feel like they are a class above your average civilian. In most other countries the cops are part of the community first and foremost and *big shocker* actually more interested in the welfare of the people they serve when who get's the newest model of Taser or laser sight.

Jose the carwash man 07-08-2013 15:48

I'll also say that if this story is true (and there are some red flags here) then the cops should all be criminally charged. This is one of the big downsides to cops not being liable for this stuff financially. They get to act like Judge Dredd and the city/county get's to pay out the multi-million dollar settlements.

Jose the carwash man 07-08-2013 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by PIMking (Post 20440264)
police are not soldiers but they're government employees...

I have a Ranger friend who said the RoE for American SWAT teams is lower than what he had going on raids in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Patchman 07-08-2013 15:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazymoose (Post 20440248)
Not going to weigh in on whether I think it's a good or bad thing, but there is a definite trend toward militarization of the police forces going on nationwide.

When I was a kid, cops most places looked basically like civilians in police uniforms and carried shotguns and revolvers. Now, as you said, most of them wear military haircuts and are issued AR's, and just about every department either has its own SWAT/SRT team or participates in a regional joint group.

I grew up in the 1970s and remember how cops looked back then. Bushy hair and hairy mustaches. And yes, I was like that too. Then in the 1980s I went with a rat tail! :supergrin: But that was stylish! Now I find crewcuts much more practical.

I do agree that U.S. LE has been forced to ramp up their equipment in response to many, many more BGs who are moving towards AK/AR rifles as their weapon of choice. I would not expect LEOs to go after long gun armed BGs with 6-shooters.

snorko 07-08-2013 15:52

I've seen this posted several places and have yet to see anyone bring up the fifth amendment vs the third in this case. To me this appears to be a takings case where the use of the property was taken by the Gov w/o just compensation or due process.

ArtyGuy 07-08-2013 16:00

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 20440235)
Militarization of the police. Surplussed military equipment. More LEOs have military background. Rank structure. LE wear uniforms, including combat styled boots. Use of military terminology. DHS getting delivery of 2.7 billion rounds of small arms ammo since January 1 of this year. Expanded/common use of blue coloured roof lights on police cars indicating merger of UN practices (traditionally, U.S. LE/first reponders only used red and white lights).

Probably many more indicia that I missed.

Way back in the late 80s and early 90s when I was studying criminal justice in college, we examined the paramilitary structure of police forces-- it is nothing new. However, I don't see that being a successful legal argument. You can argue anything but it needs to be a good argument if you wish to be successful in court.

We didn't discuss the 3rd Amendment very much in Criminal or Cnstitutional Law because it was written based upon the fact British Soldiers forced owners to quarter them and there were not any court cases that changed the way things are done.-- it is rarely challenged.

To me, they key word is Soldiers. Police are not Soldiers. The military falls under Title 10 of the US government. Local police do not, State police do not, the FBI does not, the DHS does not, and the DoS does not. They all have different stipulations. I mention that because I would think showing the distinction can be the counter argument. The amendment was written to address Soldiers and there are legal definitions of what a Soldier (military) is. The fact that the arresting officers have military style rank and/or weapons does not magically give them military authorities.

(I'm to going to touch the DHS or UN practices because they have nothing to do with this).

ArtyGuy 07-08-2013 16:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose the carwash man (Post 20440302)
I have a Ranger friend who said the RoE for American SWAT teams is lower than what he had going on raids in Afghanistan and Iraq.

I'm active duty Army with experience in both theaters doing raids. Your friend is mistaken or you misunderstood him. I would offer that SWAT teams would love to have the freedom we did. Nothing stopped us from hog tying folks, detaining them, etc. We weren't dealing with folks that had rights anywhere close to what John and Jane Q. Public have.

crazymoose 07-08-2013 16:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose the carwash man (Post 20440285)
I think it is that and the "blue wall" that makes cops feel like they are a class above your average civilian. In most other countries the cops are part of the community first and foremost and *big shocker* actually more interested in the welfare of the people they serve when who get's the newest model of Taser or laser sight.

I don't know if I'd go that far. There are a whole lot of places in the world where the police are basically thugs that get to do more or less what they want, including extortion, beating, etc. A lot of Asian, African, South American, and former Soviet countries fall into this category.

The "Blue Wall"/fraternity mentality is a legitimate thing that happens here, but it's pretty much guaranteed to happen to some degree or another. You have to factor in personality traits that are common in many police officers (very clear-cut, moralistic world view), and the fact that they are at odds with many or most of the people they interact with on a daily basis. They may not be exchanging gunfire or fists with every person they run into, but they deal with plenty of people in an average shift who aren't exactly happy to see them. These things are bound to foster an "us vs. them" mentality to some degree, but for the most part, it's pretty well controlled in this country. My biggest concerns with police in America are policy/administration/tactics oriented, and do not stem from the officers themselves.

TBO 07-08-2013 16:06

Isn't anyone wondering why they are going this type without mention of a 1983 suit?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Patchman 07-08-2013 16:07

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jose the carwash man (Post 20440298)
I'll also say that if this story is true (and there are some red flags here) then the cops should all be criminally charged. This is one of the big downsides to cops not being liable for this stuff financially. They get to act like Judge Dredd and the city/county get's to pay out the multi-million dollar settlements.

I'm curious, if the red flags should prove true, and the plaintiff lied or greatly exaggerated, what the appropriate punishment for the plaintiff should be?

gjk5 07-08-2013 16:33

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 20440305)
I do agree that U.S. LE has been forced to ramp up their equipment in response to many, many more BGs who are moving towards AK/AR rifles as their weapon of choice.


bullcrap.

TBO 07-08-2013 16:38

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 20440371)
I'm curious, if the red flags should prove true, and the plaintiff lied or greatly exaggerated, what the appropriate punishment for the plaintiff should be?

Keelhauling

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Jose the carwash man 07-08-2013 16:39

Quote:

Originally Posted by Patchman (Post 20440371)
I'm curious, if the red flags should prove true, and the plaintiff lied or greatly exaggerated, what the appropriate punishment for the plaintiff should be?

Depends on how much they are lying. I am not sure about this particular court but I wanna say the loser pays the winners legal fees in federal civil cases.

I posted a video from a 4th of July DUI checkpoint and it wouldn't shock me in the least to see those cops do something like mentioned in this case. They are audio recorded off camera berating the subject about how his "rights" don't mean spit to them.

CAcop 07-08-2013 17:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by TBO (Post 20440367)
Isn't anyone wondering why they are going this type without mention of a 1983 suit?

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Good question. I know the answer and it points to why this may be BS.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Ohub Campfire mobile app

boomhower 07-08-2013 17:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by gjk5 (Post 20440447)
bullcrap.

How do you figure? Maybe not everywhere but that's certainly the case in my little piece of paradise.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:43.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2013, Glock Talk, All Rights Reserved.