close

Privacy guaranteed - Your email is not shared with anyone.

The Changing Face of Police in America

Discussion in 'Civil Liberties Issues' started by NorthCarolinaLiberty, Jun 9, 2011.


  1. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    HereIt'
    Here’s a good video summation of the changing face of law enforcement in America. It includes footage of the swat team that murdered the Marine in Arizona. Rutherford’s John Whitehead also comments on how police are now free to just knock down your door when the mood strikes them.

    Video from The Rutherford Institute:

    http://www.rutherford.org/OnTarget/2011/06-01-2011.asp
    bIt's been about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that AmericaIt's been about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures
    <TABLE style="WIDTH: 336pt; BACKGROUND: black; mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=560><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #f0f0f0; BORDER-LEFT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #f0f0f0; BORDER-RIGHT: #f0f0f0; PADDING-TOP: 0in">
    <TABLE style="WIDTH: 336pt; BACKGROUND: black; mso-cellspacing: 0in; mso-yfti-tbllook: 1184; mso-padding-alt: 0in 0in 0in 0in" class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width=560><TBODY><TR style="mso-yfti-irow: 0; mso-yfti-firstrow: yes; mso-yfti-lastrow: yes"><TD style="BORDER-BOTTOM: #ffffff; BORDER-LEFT: #ffffff; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0in; BACKGROUND-COLOR: transparent; PADDING-LEFT: 0in; PADDING-RIGHT: 0in; BORDER-TOP: #ffffff; BORDER-RIGHT: #ffffff; PADDING-TOP: 0in" vAlign=bottom>It's been about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:eek:ffice:eek:ffice" /><o:p></o:p>



    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>









    </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>​
    <o:p></o:p>



    again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to beIt's been about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Amerihttp://www.rutherford.org/OnTarget/2011/06-01-2011.aspcans would t to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courtsght back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. <!-- InstanceEndEditable -->ns would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts. <!-- InstanceEndEditable -->een about 250 years since our ancestors fought to ensure that Americans would never have to face intrusive government measures again. Yet as John Whitehead points out in this week's vodcast, we seem to be right back where we started, living in an era of oppressive government policies and a militarized police whose unauthorized, forceful intrusions into our homes and our lives have been increasingly condoned by the courts.
    <!-- InstanceEndEditable -->​
     

    Wanna kill these ads? We can help!
  2. ricklee4570

    ricklee4570
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    1,825
    0
    Interesting video
     

  3. ugly8604

    ugly8604
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    808
    0
    It's apparent this guy has very little grasp of the recent case law decisions he cites throughout the video. The fourth amendment is not "dead," as a matter of fact it is alive and well. The majority of a detective or federal agent's time is taken writing warrants and gathering information to establish enough probable cause to obtain a search warrant or make an arrest. If the police could simply walk into your house as this guy states without any probable cause, hot pursuit, exigent circumstances, etc, they would never waste their time with a warrant.

    It is unfortunate how this "Rutherford Institute" has misconstrued the actions of law enforcement. Two examples:

    The Guerena shooting. As I'm sure you are all aware, the Pima County Sheriff's Department has released several documents, including video of the shooting and the search warrant which was used to make entry into Guerena's residence. I urge anyone who has any doubt in this legitimacy of this case to review the warrant. Although lengthy, it does an excellent job at painting the picture of Mr. Guerena's criminal activities. Unfortunately, he was a criminal, and was involved in serious illegal operations with Mexican cartels. An example of how dangerous his organizations was can be found within the search warrant. While surveilling Guerena's house in unmarked vehicles, several mexican nationals exited Guerana's residence and began conducting counter-surveillance measures. At one point, a vehicle from Guerana's residence followed a government surveillance vehicle. The next day, a registration inquiry of the government vehicle was made by a DMV worker. The cartels had a connection within the DMV and were trying to find out if they were being surveilled!

    There was a mountain of probable cause to believe narcotics or other evidence regarding the sales and transportation of narcotics was inside of Guerena's residence. A prosecutor and a judge signed off on the warrant. Regardless of whether or not something was found is irrelevant, the police executed the search warrant by the book according to the fourth amendment, sometimes they come out empty handed. All that is required for a search warrant is probable cause to believe something (drugs, etc) is inside the residence, not absolute certainty.

    The second example is the Kentucky V. King decision the gentleman in the video is speaking of. His interpretation of the facts is severely misconstrued. He states the police are chasing a "so called suspect" (he was a suspect, he had just sold drugs to an undercover cop) through an apartment building. The gentleman states the officers lose the suspect and randomly "blow down" a door they can smell marijuana coming from. When in reality, the police were only a few feet behind the suspect while running through the apartment complex, the suspect turned a sudden corner and was out of sight for only a few seconds. Within those few seconds the police heard a door slam. When they turned the corner there were two doors. They smelled marijuana emitting from the door on the right. Knowing they were dealing with a confirmed drug dealer, the officers felt it was more probable the drug dealer had run into the apartment was emitting the smell of, you guessed it, an illegal drug.

    The police were in "hot pursuit" and acted in "good faith," although they entered the wrong door, their intentions were clearly not simply to kick a random door and do a random search. They were hot on the trail of a bad guy and were trying to find him, the fact they stumbled across additional narcotics is just dumb luck. The supreme court has recognized "good faith" and "hot pursuit" as forgivable instances where law enforcement officials have made errors, but did so without purposely violating the fourth amendment. Our forefathers agreed.

    I think this guy is scaring himself to due to his profound lack of comprehension when it comes to legal issues. It's too bad.

    I hope this clears things up for everyone.
     
  4. OldCurlyWolf

    OldCurlyWolf
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    762
    2
    You May be totally correct on those two, however the Recent Indiana Supreme Court Ruling is a total mess up, in that it almost guts the 4th amendment and the laws governing self defense in Indiana. The people of that state need to impeach the entire court and start fresh.
     
  5. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    Law enforcement shrewdly likes to use the 6 o'clock local news as their own personal police blotter, so perhaps they got a taste of their own medicine in this one. What they discovered in Guerena's home hardly matches their Pablo Escobar claims. Perhaps they should reveal the real reason for secrecy.

    The King case is actually a perfect example of how the 4th amendment has been eroded. Marijuana smoke from behind a door is hardly exigent. Neo Reefer Madness has created a mindset whereby police equate a person getting choked to death with some dude behind a door smoking a fat one.
     
  6. ugly8604

    ugly8604
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    808
    0
    I have addressed both of your points in my previous post.

    To recap:

    It is irrelevant if the police failed to find anything of evidentiary value as a result of the search warrant. They had probable cause to believe evidence was inside of the residence. They followed the steps defined by the fourth amendment and obtained a search warrant. Again, to obtain a search warrant, the police need only articulate "probable cause," not "absolute certainty" that the items they are searching for are inside of the residence.

    Secondly, the officers in the King case did not force entry into the apartment solely because they smelled marijuana smoke, it was the totality of the circumstances.

    I am not familiar with Indiana state law. However, don't forget that federal law supersedes state law. If there was a fourth amendment violation, the case can be appealed to the supreme court. The supreme court then has the authority to overturn the law if it deems it unconstitutional.
     
  7. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    .....

     
  8. ugly8604

    ugly8604
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2005
    808
    0
    A dead retired marine and a criminal. Unfortunate but true. These facts are clearly laid out in the search warrant (which I've read). Watch the video, these people heard the police sirens, heard the police announcements, and still decided to grab a rifle. GOOD SHOOT.

    How so? It is certainly not the situation in the case mentioned above. The search warrant cites numerous specific facts laying out the probable cause that evidence would be located inside of the residence. Judges won't sign warrants full of "hope" they sign warrants full of "facts."



    They were running, they had run quite a distance while chasing a suspect. He went into one door or another. They picked door B because marijuana was emitting from the apartment and the toilet was flushing. Anyone in their right mind would be the dealer PROBABLY went into apartment B and is flushing the rest of his drugs because he knows he's busted. They went into the apartment with good faith. The courts recognize and appreciate this fact.

    I don't really know what you would rather have these officers do? Just say "Aw darn he got away," and give up?
     
  9. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    .....
     
  10. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe
    Expand Collapse
    you savvy?

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2001
    19,718
    2,511
    one thing folks have now-a-days that they didnt way back yon is the court system.....

    if you are wronged by the police and they were shown to be incompetent, decietfull, immoral, unethical, or illegal, you will have an award to more than compensate any monitary lose you suffered.
     
  11. ricklee4570

    ricklee4570
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2009
    1,825
    0
    IF--you have the money to fight the system. For poor people it can be very daunting.
     
  12. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe
    Expand Collapse
    you savvy?

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2001
    19,718
    2,511
    IF--you have an honest case, there are more than enough lawyers who will take your case probono....hell, even if its a b.s. case there are lawyers who will take it probono knowing that entities pay off instead of fight in court.....
     
  13. lwbfl

    lwbfl
    Expand Collapse
    2A Defender

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2011
    146
    0
    Location:
    Florida Panhandle
    The sensational actions of the few are being propagated as "the norm". Does the guy in the video really think that most LEO's are wearing swat gear? Out here in the woods where I live, State and County have regular uniforms, city is likely to be wearing jeans and a T-shirt with insignia. Even our local special teams wear regular uniforms. Media - bah humbug.
     
    #13 lwbfl, Jun 13, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 13, 2011
  14. Sam Spade

    Sam Spade
    Expand Collapse
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2003
    14,455
    1,201
    Dingdingding! :number1:

    Federal law authorizes full attorney costs to be paid by the .gov. All the poor guy with the honest case has to do is win $1 (of which the same attorney will take 33 cents...).
     
  15. SgtScott31

    SgtScott31
    Expand Collapse

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2011
    355
    0
    So I guess since there's no criminal history he's not one??? Actions and what the officers had to deal with at the time the incident took place.

    Considering the tens of thousands of arrests every week that go by the book when it comes to 4th Amendment issues, there's no trend. Checkpoints and the constitutionality of them are very strict. I don't see a "trend" here either. Considering cop work in the 70s/80s versus LE work now days, if anything officers know more about constitutional issues and the law more than they ever did.

    There were only seconds that had elapsed. They thought he was in there and destruction of evidence is an exigent circumstance to the warrant requirement. The judge(s) had no problem with the warrantless search, regardless of the outcome. If you can't accept that, it's your perrogative. We go by the judge's decision.



    If evidence is being destroyed, or we have a valid and articulable reason to believe evidence is being destroyed, time to get a warrant is too late. The facts demonstrated this in the particular case at hand.<!-- END TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->
     
  16. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    .....
     
    #16 NorthCarolinaLiberty, Jun 15, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 15, 2011
  17. cowboywannabe

    cowboywannabe
    Expand Collapse
    you savvy?

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2001
    19,718
    2,511
    the cops are playing by the rules the judges whom you elected enacted.

    since you dont like you should change the law. and doing it starts with election of different judges, not talking crap about cops following the current law.
     
    #17 cowboywannabe, Jun 16, 2011
    Last edited: Jun 16, 2011
  18. volsbear

    volsbear
    Expand Collapse
    IWannaBeSedated
    Lifetime Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2007
    11,457
    43
    Location:
    Illinois
    Good grief. It's awful whiney in here.
     
  19. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    You're right; some judges have dropped the ball on these issues. Some judges don't even know how rules are being bent and how limits are being redefined in the real world. Pointing to another branch of government however, is still no excuse for law enforcement not doing its job.
     
  20. NorthCarolinaLiberty

    NorthCarolinaLiberty
    Expand Collapse
    MentalDefective

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2009
    5,145
    0
    Location:
    Tax Funded Mental Institution
    Courts have always existed. Large awards funded by taxpayers is hardly a solution for the wrongs you cite.

    Wrongs aren't also just the blatant wrongs you list. They also include bending the rules and redefining interaction with the law-abiding public. Stop casting wide nets and do the job.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads Forum Date
The State of Online Discourse in America The Okie Corral Mar 17, 2016
The rise of liberal intolerance in America Political Issues Nov 30, 2015
Cowardice In The Face Of The Enemy The Okie Corral Sep 15, 2014
The rise of atheism in America Religious Issues Sep 23, 2013
The Changing Face of Democracy Political Issues Jul 23, 2012
Duty Gear at CopsPlus