GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-16-2013, 18:58   #726
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Really? You didn't understand before that post, and you did not understand that post.
At this point I don't know what you're talking about or the point you'd like to make.

Besides why are you replying to posts addressed to TBO?

I can tell you what my point is. Anytime a thread pops up in these subfora involving strong disagreements between LE and non LE you pop in to oppose the non LE, remind them (but not the LE that political or cop threads don't belong in places like the lounge, needle the nonLE with endless hairsplitting. Meanwhile a LEO just now chimed in with the exact same point I was defending in the Boston threads and your entire disposition toward his position changed.

Its humorous. And here you are again picking up slack for TBO and inserting yourself into a conversation that has nothing to do with you except apparently a non LE is in disagreement with a LEO.

Maybe I'm off base here. Help me understand.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 06-16-2013 at 19:09..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 19:30   #727
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger1968 View Post
If they forced their way into homes or coerced the homeowners to allow them to enter, then their actions were a 4th Amendment violation;

That's pretty obvious;

Whether any real "harm" arose from that is something that I do not know, but it IS unlawful; were any criminal charges to arise out of anything they found in the homes, I think it would be suppressed.

This is pretty clear cut law; there are specific criteria for exigent circumstances , and the door to door search of the Watertown Boston area that occurred does not meet that criteria.....That a crime occurred at another location , and that the suspect in that crime is at large is NOT enough to justify the interior search of almost all of the homes in that entire neighborhood , no matter what the crime was, and no matter how inflamed the populace had been become.
Russ we had a whole crowd of LE in this thread and/or the other one passionately defending the boston police searches as exigent circumstances and claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about when I said that the criteria needed for EC weren't present. (Yeah their positions moderated later in the thread). You were right along with them.

Yet here is LE saying the exact same thing. I said page after page and it hardly gets a notice from you or any of the LE. What's up with that?




Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 19:34   #728
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
That's it? Ok?

Why did you want examples?
Yes, that's it.

Why? You offered to provide them.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 19:48   #729
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Yes, that's it.

Why? You offered to provide them.
I offered to provide them to TBO. He didnt ask for them. You did. What was your purpose?


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 19:59   #730
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
At this point I don't know what you're talking about or the point you'd like to make.

Besides why are you replying to posts addressed to TBO?
In that reply, you said I scolded you about TBO's point #2, "How can what happened in Boston affect you?"

At that point in the thread ,where we were discussing MKEgal's post about 241, you said
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
As to the specifics in your question, I haven't the slightest. Not even really sure what is being discussed.
I was just pointing out to you that based on your posting history in two threads, you should have been very sure of what was being discussed.

If that is the scolding you are talking about, then, fine...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 20:00   #731
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I offered to provide them to TBO. He didnt ask for them. You did. What was your purpose?
To understand.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 20:35   #732
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Lets go straight to everyone's favorite: federal drug laws - fed has no authority to regulate narcotics therefore you have a right to own, consume or manufacture any substance unless prohibited by the state in which you reside.

After that: federal gun laws, specifically NFA or even FFL licensing. The fedgov has no authority to regulate firearms, accessories or the manufacture/sale of such. Therefore you have a right to own or manufacture a machine gun unless prohibited by your state.

Then: EPA regulation of private property

Followed by: virtually every federal power, regulation or supporting agency justified via the interstate commerce or necessary and proper clause.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
I hate to defend the EPA in any form since it is a giant PITA to me but your extremist broad brush approach leaves me no choice.

What do we do about a river, say, the Columbia, that touches at least three States and provides the border between Oregon and Washington. What would prevent Washington, having different laws from Oregon, allowing the dumping of toxic chemicals into the river and destroying the Oregon fisheries? A lawsuit would hardly do any good if salmon runs were destroyed perhaps for decades. Would it really do Oregon a lot of good to drive their neighboring State into bankruptcy?

I don't really expect to debate this particular issue, although I am sure your ego has convinced you that you have an answer for everything. I just enjoy pointing out the unintended consequences of the extremist "no rules " ideology as much as I do the extremists who insists government needs to control everything. Both are foolish but the "no Government" crowd is even a bit more annoying in that they think they would have all the benefits of society today and none of the downside if Govt was completely out of the way. Almost as bad as those folks who think that they would still be free if Govt controlled everything.

It's no wonder both of the extremists hate conservatives like me who say "wait a minute, both of you, pull your heads out of your fairy tails and deal with reality instead of whining and crying for you dangerous fairy tales to come true.

If you think the leftist big brother folks have too much influence, I agree, but tell me how, under our Constitution can they be stopped other than by Constitutional means? What has stopped them from going farther? That same Constitution that allowed them to get this far. There is no way it can be rolled back to some 1799 level. IT AIN"T A GONNA HAPPEN. Instead of saying "It's the impossible or nothing at all for me" and throwing harpoons at people trying to limit and make some progress on rolling it back a bit and getting bent because they aren't radical enough, you should be helping them fighting those lazy loons on the left. Our whole system is, and wisely was, filled with protections against extremism, change only happens incrementally. You are either part of the incremental change or you are a disaffected and impotent extreme. Your choice.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 20:43   #733
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I hate to defend the EPA in any form since it is a giant PITA to me but your extremist broad brush approach leaves me no choice.

What do we do about a river, say, the Columbia, that touches at least three States and provides the border between Oregon and Washington. What would prevent Washington, having different laws from Oregon, allowing the dumping of toxic chemicals into the river and destroying the Oregon fisheries? A lawsuit would hardly do any good if salmon runs were destroyed perhaps for decades. Would it really do Oregon a lot of good to drive their neighboring State into bankruptcy?

I don't really expect to debate this particular issue, although I am sure your ego has convinced you that you have an answer for everything. I just enjoy pointing out the unintended consequences of the extremist "no rules " ideology as much as I do the extremists who insists government needs to control everything. Both are foolish but the "no Government" crowd is even a bit more annoying in that they think they would have all the benefits of society today and none of the downside if Govt was completely out of the way. Almost as bad as those folks who think that they would still be free if Govt controlled everything.

It's no wonder both of the extremists hate conservatives like me who say "wait a minute, both of you, pull your heads out of your fairy tails and deal with reality instead of whining and crying for you dangerous fairy tales to come true.

If you think the leftist big brother folks have too much influence, I agree, but tell me how, under our Constitution can they be stopped other than by Constitutional means? What has stopped them from going farther? That same Constitution that allowed them to get this far. There is no way it can be rolled back to some 1799 level. IT AIN"T A GONNA HAPPEN. Instead of saying "It's the impossible or nothing at all for me" and throwing harpoons at people trying to limit and make some progress on rolling it back a bit and getting bent because they aren't radical enough, you should be helping them fighting those lazy loons on the left. Our whole system is, and wisely was, filled with protections against extremism, change only happens incrementally. You are either part of the incremental change or you are a disaffected and impotent extreme. Your choice.
Who do you know that owns a river?

You? Conservative?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 20:44   #734
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Russ we had a whole crowd of LE in this thread and/or the other one passionately defending the boston police searches as exigent circumstances and claiming that I had no idea what I was talking about when I said that the criteria needed for EC weren't present. (Yeah their positions moderated later in the thread). You were right along with them.

Yet here is LE saying the exact same thing. I said page after page and it hardly gets a notice from you or any of the LE. What's up with that?
As you said, all that was previously discussed in this or the other thread. Those who defended exigent circumstances then would be the ones to put that question to.

Me? I'm still of the opinion that any changes in exigent circumstances criteria will come through the courts.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 20:47   #735
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
In that reply, you said I scolded you about TBO's point #2, "How can what happened in Boston affect you?"

At that point in the thread ,where we were discussing MKEgal's post about 241, you saidI was just pointing out to you that based on your posting history in two threads, you should have been very sure of what was being discussed.

If that is the scolding you are talking about, then, fine...
It didn't matter what was being discussed. The topic wasn't really relevant. Countrygun misread a statement and responded off kilter. But thanks for pointing out that the poster was a female. That was particularly important and very informative.

At that point I hadn't been on the thread or GT for a couple weeks so I didn't know where the conversation had gone. I appreciate your concern, however, even though, once again, it had nothing to do with you.
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 21:00   #736
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
As you said, all that was previously discussed in this or the other thread. Those who defended exigent circumstances then would be the ones to put that question to.

Me? I'm still of the opinion that any changes in exigent circumstances criteria will come through the courts.
Why would there need to be any changes if the police acted lawfully?

The criteria for exigent circumstances were not present no matter how poorly several LEOs here understand the concept or the specifics.

So my questions to you, Russ:

Do you think the police should knowingly act outside of what the law says they may do?

Do you believe it is proper for agents of the state to act illegally and then hope that a court rules in their favor and expands the power of the state at the expense of the Bill of Rights?

Does it concern you that so many GT LEOs misunderstand under what circumstances they may execute a warrantless search?
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 21:09   #737
Ruble Noon
"Cracker"
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 11,018
Quote:
Originally Posted by countrygun View Post
I hate to defend the EPA in any form since it is a giant PITA to me but your extremist broad brush approach leaves me no choice.

What do we do about a river, say, the Columbia, that touches at least three States and provides the border between Oregon and Washington. What would prevent Washington, having different laws from Oregon, allowing the dumping of toxic chemicals into the river and destroying the Oregon fisheries? A lawsuit would hardly do any good if salmon runs were destroyed perhaps for decades. Would it really do Oregon a lot of good to drive their neighboring State into bankruptcy?

I don't really expect to debate this particular issue, although I am sure your ego has convinced you that you have an answer for everything. I just enjoy pointing out the unintended consequences of the extremist "no rules " ideology as much as I do the extremists who insists government needs to control everything. Both are foolish but the "no Government" crowd is even a bit more annoying in that they think they would have all the benefits of society today and none of the downside if Govt was completely out of the way. Almost as bad as those folks who think that they would still be free if Govt controlled everything.

It's no wonder both of the extremists hate conservatives like me who say "wait a minute, both of you, pull your heads out of your fairy tails and deal with reality instead of whining and crying for you dangerous fairy tales to come true.

If you think the leftist big brother folks have too much influence, I agree, but tell me how, under our Constitution can they be stopped other than by Constitutional means? What has stopped them from going farther? That same Constitution that allowed them to get this far. There is no way it can be rolled back to some 1799 level. IT AIN"T A GONNA HAPPEN. Instead of saying "It's the impossible or nothing at all for me" and throwing harpoons at people trying to limit and make some progress on rolling it back a bit and getting bent because they aren't radical enough, you should be helping them fighting those lazy loons on the left. Our whole system is, and wisely was, filled with protections against extremism, change only happens incrementally. You are either part of the incremental change or you are a disaffected and impotent extreme. Your choice.

Oh man, the COTUS is now an extremist position?

And you a conservative?

Try progressive on for size, I think you'll find it fits nicely.
Ruble Noon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 21:40   #738
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Why would there need to be any changes if the police acted lawfully?
Did I say there was a need?
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Do you think the police should knowingly act outside of what the law says they may do?
Should anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Do you believe it is proper for agents of the state to act illegally and then hope that a court rules in their favor and expands the power of the state at the expense of the Bill of Rights?
I do not believe the government should usurp the Rights of the People.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Does it concern you that so many GT LEOs misunderstand under what circumstances they may execute a warrantless search?
I don't believe they misunderstand they law. I do not believe they misunderstand the application of the law. I do not believe that they would not properly apply the law based on the totality of circumstances which they would face performing their jobs. I do believe that everyone in law enforcement will learn from the Boston/Watertown events. None of that concerns me.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 22:00   #739
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ruble Noon View Post
Oh man, the COTUS is now an extremist position?

And you a conservative?

Try progressive on for size, I think you'll find it fits nicely.
You have a habit of putting words you want to comment on in other peoples mouths.

I don't know what you claim to represent COTUS or not, I do know that Libertarians were the most disenfranchised group I have ever seen in the last election. They didn't influence either the actual candidate or the platform of either party.

With only 4% of the vote I would say that they are out of touch with the people, and that is an earmark of extremism, or uselessness, whichever you prefer.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 23:20   #740
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Did I say there was a need?
Why even introduce the notion of the courts changing the criteria for exigent circumstances if everything was done above board?

Quote:
Should anyone?
Sure. There are lots of reasons for citizens to break the law and rightfully so. I shudder to think what would happen though if an illegal warrantless search absent exigent circumstances would have resulted in gunfire inside a home. The resident would be in quite a pickle. If the terrorist busted in at least he could legally defend his home.

Quote:
I do not believe the government should usurp the Rights of the People.
The government can't. Well, not without willing accomplices.

Quote:
I don't believe they misunderstand they law. I do not believe they misunderstand the application of the law.
Well that ignores the posts in this thread. You have some LE saying it was most definitely exigent circumstances and a couple others saying it definitely wasn't. Surely one of the two groups misunderstands the law and the application of it.

Quote:
I do not believe that they would not properly apply the law based on the totality of circumstances which they would face performing their jobs.
The totality of circumstances is not a free pass to do whatever they think necessary. If Katrina taught us nothing else, it taught us this. 2nd Amendment rights or 4th Amendment rights. The totality of circumstances does not give the state carte blanche. If they did there would be no reason to have specific court-recognized criteria for exigent circumstances, would it?

Quote:
I do believe that everyone in law enforcement will learn from the Boston/Watertown events. None of that concerns me.
I hope so. I trust we agree that if they are found to have acted illegally there should be penalties.
But according to many LEOs here I'm not so sure because they said repeatedly that they believe the cops in Boston did nothing wrong, so I'm not so sure. But then we have a couple LE here who say those others are dead wrong.

Either way, the good news is the terrorist didn't harm anyone else and never got into anyone's home since a resident found him outside. Frankly that all makes it even more confusing because for exigent circumstances to exist they would have had to be in hot pursuit when he entered the home or at least had probable cause to believe he was in the home....not A home....THE home...before they entered. Yet he was found outside and not in any home so probable cause is doubtful. In fact, my memory's foggy but I think he was found outside the search area altogether.

Maybe next time along with all those officers they could bother to bring a Judge. That way, he can just go ahead and sign a warrant to search every home within the 20 block area. I'm sure a judge would do that, dontcha think Russ? Given the totality of circumstances and all I'm sure he would have signed it. If there was time to assemble that many men and formulate and communicate a search plan surely there was time to get a judge with an ink pen. Just one. Maybe they did get a judge but the judge's ink pen didn't work. I hate that. Its happened to me. Always happens at the worst times too.

Last edited by certifiedfunds; 06-17-2013 at 06:45..
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 23:37   #741
mortpes
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 592
Although I too have nothing to hide I wonder about the wisdom of answering the knock. I notice the officers put many holes in the boat the fellow was in although he was not shooting back or had a gun. Also there are increasing reports of SWAT teams shooting innocent people, wrong addresses, etc. So what can we do to avoid being the victim of a trigger happy coffee overdosed hypertensive recruit?
mortpes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-16-2013, 23:50   #742
Ohio Copper
Senior Member
 
Ohio Copper's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: In the hood
Posts: 3,965
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortpes View Post
Although I too have nothing to hide I wonder about the wisdom of answering the knock. I notice the officers put many holes in the boat the fellow was in although he was not shooting back or had a gun. Also there are increasing reports of SWAT teams shooting innocent people, wrong addresses, etc. So what can we do to avoid being the victim of a trigger happy coffee overdosed hypertensive recruit?
Welcome to the party.

Anothe expert slinging mud...what is it you do for a living?

"Increasing reports of swat teams shooting innocent people"- with the exception of the few incidents discussed at length please advise on the increase.


Sounds to me more like a quick bash and run, I await your response.


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
__________________
Quote:
Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain - and most fools do.

Benjamin Franklin
Ohio Copper is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 00:25   #743
certifiedfunds
Platinum Membership
Tewwowist
 
certifiedfunds's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: NYC
Posts: 39,719


Quote:
Originally Posted by mortpes View Post
Although I too have nothing to hide I wonder about the wisdom of answering the knock. I notice the officers put many holes in the boat the fellow was in although he was not shooting back or had a gun. Also there are increasing reports of SWAT teams shooting innocent people, wrong addresses, etc. So what can we do to avoid being the victim of a trigger happy coffee overdosed hypertensive recruit?
No one has been proven innocent yet


Posted using Outdoor Hub Campfire
certifiedfunds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 00:50   #744
countrygun
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Posts: 17,068
Quote:
Originally Posted by mortpes View Post
Although I too have nothing to hide I wonder about the wisdom of answering the knock. I notice the officers put many holes in the boat the fellow was in although he was not shooting back or had a gun. Also there are increasing reports of SWAT teams shooting innocent people, wrong addresses, etc. So what can we do to avoid being the victim of a trigger happy coffee overdosed hypertensive recruit?
So, tell me how you, in your expert opinion after years of experience, think should have been done when they had a person cornered who had participated in a religiously inspired bombing, of the type carried out by suicidal fanatics, had chucked bombs out of a car and who had participated in the murder of a campus cop ?

Given the fact that it would not have been unthinkable that he had another explosive device or a suicide vest or might have had a gun, I guess the proper thing would have been to find some putz to walk up to the boat and ask him "How's it hanging Dude" ?

"fellow" you call him a "fellow" ? pull your head out of the sand (or wherever)The poor little baby did everything he could to bring a world of &(*% down on his head and that is exactly what he got. I'll bet he isn't surprised that there are MMQB's with kind hearts and good thoughts, and a latent desire to bash LE, who think they know how it should have been handled and that they could have done better.

The fact that you can look at the damage and the horror your "Hardy Boys" inflicted on your fellow Americans and even give his fate a passing thought is sign that America may well be coming to the point where it deserves what it is going to get in the future if they keep coddling these bombing monsters.

The fact that you try to spin the situation to indict the law enforcement officers who put their lives on the line and try and make them the villains instead of the twisted SOB that killed and maimed so many innocent people, tells me that you would harbor no ill will if one of your family were killed or had their legs blown off.

You have entirely too much sympathy for your enemies. The sad part is that it is almost a guarantee that your genes are in the pool because your ancestors weren't so soft in the head.
countrygun is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 08:05   #745
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Why even introduce the notion...
I did not introduce "the notion" into the discussion. I believe 4949 and others did that. I expounded on the topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
...of the courts changing the criteria for exigent circumstances...
It's long been held that the courts are the final arbitrators of such issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
...if everything was done above board?
Who really gets to make that determination?

You can post that they were wrong all over the internet. It means nothing.

All the cops on here can post the actions were 100% right. It means nothing.

The citizens of Watertown, Cambridge, Boston, Massachusetts, they are the ones whose voices carry the weight, right? They can say... well, so far they are saying nothing. That is bothering a lot of people. A damaged person must come forward, say they were wrong and challenge the actions.

Where?

In the courts.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:03   #746
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Do you think the police should knowingly act outside of what the law says they may do?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Should anyone?
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Sure. There are lots of reasons for citizens to break the law and rightfully so.
Of course...
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
I shudder to think what would happen though if an illegal warrantless search absent exigent circumstances would have resulted in gunfire inside a home. The resident would be in quite a pickle.
That is why they were asking residents to vacate while they searched. If they found the 2nd suspect, the resident would be out of harm's way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
If the terrorist busted in at least he could legally defend his home.
If he were one of the 260,000 people in Mass who have a permit to own a firearm, yes.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2013, 09:41   #747
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
Do you believe it is proper for agents of the state to act illegally and then hope that a court rules in their favor and expands the power of the state at the expense of the Bill of Rights?
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
I do not believe the government should usurp the Rights of the People.
Quote:
Originally Posted by certifiedfunds View Post
The government can't. Well, not without willing accomplices.
As I said, "I do not believe the government should usurp the Rights of the People."
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-18-2013, 03:20   #748
G19G20
Status Quo 2014
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 2,003
All of yall need to get a life.
__________________
"If we understand the mechanism and motives of the group mind, is it not possible to control and regiment the masses according to our will without their knowing it?"-Edward Bernays, grandfather of modern propaganda
G19G20 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:22   #749
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
All of yall need to get a life.
Gosh, I wish I'd thought of that in the...naw, I'd have to report myself if I went further.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-19-2013, 08:34   #750
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 42,620
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by G19G20 View Post
All of yall need to get a life.
I'm retired...I get to choose what I do. Today, I think maybe, maybe I'll go work on my sailboat before it rains later this afternoon, or maybe not.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Tags
arrogance of ignorance, brownshirts, jbterrific, no court needed, statists, the usual suspects
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:16.



Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 710
172 Members
538 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,244
Nov 11, 2013 at 11:42