[QuikMike]

some of our rights and freedoms are being stripped away right before our eyes...geez...check it:

CNN.com - Police don't have to knock, justices say - Jun 15, 2006

[ConqSoft]

If they had a search warrant, then they shouldn't have to knock...

[Purpdust]

Ya, why give them a warning.

[gthotchkiss]

Originally Posted by ConqSoft

If they had a search warrant, then they shouldn't have to knock...

Yeah, 10-15 seconds b4? Plenty of time to flush some coke down the toilet...

Without knocking, I betcha they run in on some interesting sights!

[QuikMike]

Originally Posted by gthotchkiss

Yeah, 10-15 seconds b4? Plenty of time to flush some coke down the toilet...

Without knocking, I betcha they run in on some interesting sights!

I would agree....

[luvtolean]

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?

Let's just start issuing jackboots and get it over with.

[luvtolean]

BTW, since it seems to escape several of you, a search warrant does not mean the person is guilty, only that there is suspicion.

If this is how the court is going to start ruling, I definitely wish Kerry had won.

[Purpdust]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Hey, if you have nothing to hide, why do you care?

If they have a warrant then it is reasonable to believe they there is cause for the invitation. Without cause, no one should be permitted to just enter without being invited first. We are entitled to a bit of privacy, just remember when you participate in illegal activities or associate you self with those that do, you are surrendering that right.

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by Purpdust

If they have a warrant then it is reasonable to believe they there is cause for the invitation. Without cause, no one should be permitted to just enter without being invited first. We are entitled to a bit of privacy, just remember when you participate in illegal activities or associate you self with those that do, you are surrendering that right.

Though I didn't add a smiley, I think my second post clears it up...I couldn't have been more sarcastic in my remarks.

I think this is just another line item in a long list of apalling things the "conservatives" have done to my country over the last 8 years as they fashioned themselves into a party of big government, big spending and against citizen's rights.

The very reasons I am a registered republican have been betrayed...

[phobiaphobe]

What exactly are "jackboots" anyway?

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

What exactly are "jackboots" anyway?

They say it better, and more concisely, than I probably would.

Jackboot - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[jaim]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

BTW, since it seems to escape several of you, a search warrant does not mean the person is guilty, only that there is suspicion.

If this is how the court is going to start ruling, I definitely wish Kerry had won.

Aaaah, a breath of fresh air in this fog of fascism.

[clutchslip]

Originally Posted by Purpdust

If they have a warrant then it is reasonable to believe they there is cause for the invitation. Without cause, no one should be permitted to just enter without being invited first. We are entitled to a bit of privacy, just remember when you participate in illegal activities or associate you self with those that do, you are surrendering that right.

Some of you guys scare the hell out of me. Take the first sentence above - it is ASSUMED you must have done something wrong because someone with a badge says you have done something wrong.

This is what defense attorneys face all the time. Juries ASSUME the defendent MUST have done something otherwise why is he there in court?

I can site several personal experiences. One I just ended, where the law enforcement was not only wrong, but they lied.

Here is a true story from my twenties: I was staying at a friend's house. 5 of us guys got stinking drunk and we were crashed at about 10 AM that morning. Eight local cops crashed through the doors, came through windows, roughed us up, handcuffed us. And generally bullied us.

Why? Because three doors down there was a methodrine dealer. Glad they didn't open fire when they came busting in with their warrant for the WRONG ****ing people.

[Aychdot]

How many of you know someone who has had their door kicked in by the police. I don't personally know any but from what I hear, weather they leave with evidence or not, they do not repair said door! I really have a problem with you breaking my **** and not fixing it.


I remember in the late 80's early 90's where the cops would really search peoples cars. Pull the seats out, speaker boxes, whatever they wanted to do while you sat there on the curb. When they were done they got into the squad car and left you looking like you just got evicted from your car.

Now I am not saying that I don't belive that they should wait to enter someone's home with a warrant. But leave it like you found it and be liable for anything that you broke.

[gthotchkiss]

Originally Posted by Aychdot

Now I am not saying that I don't belive that they should wait to enter someone's home with a warrant. But leave it like you found it and be liable for anything that you broke.

Now I'll have to agree to that, you need a warrant to search, you need some type of reason to get a warrant... if that reason turns out to be wrong, compensate the innocent...

if it turns out to be right, screw em... break all their stuff

[deez]

Originally Posted by QuikMike

some of our rights and freedoms are being stripped away right before our eyes...geez...check it:

CNN.com - Police don't have to knock, justices say - Jun 15, 2006

The Bush legacy continues...


"Alito turned out to be the deciding vote in the Hudson case. He was not yet on the bench when the case was first argued in January. His predecessor, Sandra Day O'Connor, heard the case and appeared to support the defendant."

[luvtolean]

Originally Posted by clutchslip

Some of you guys scare the hell out of me. Take the first sentence above - it is ASSUMED you must have done something wrong because someone with a badge says you have done something wrong.

This is what defense attorneys face all the time. Juries ASSUME the defendent MUST have done something otherwise why is he there in court?

I can site several personal experiences. One I just ended, where the law enforcement was not only wrong, but they lied.

Here is a true story from my twenties: I was staying at a friend's house. 5 of us guys got stinking drunk and we were crashed at about 10 AM that morning. Eight local cops crashed through the doors, came through windows, roughed us up, handcuffed us. And generally bullied us.

Why? Because three doors down there was a methodrine dealer. Glad they didn't open fire when they came busting in with their warrant for the WRONG ****ing people.

Clearly they busted down your door because you were criminals...

People just don't get it.

I like how Jerry Spence, the best defense attorney in the US puts it:

"What is a loophole for 'those criminals' will become your sacred Constitutional rights if, God forbid, you or a member of your family is ever charged with a crime."

[clutchslip]

Originally Posted by Aychdot

How many of you know someone who has had their door kicked in by the police. I don't personally know any but from what I hear, weather they leave with evidence or not, they do not repair said door! I really have a problem with you breaking my **** and not fixing it.

Now I am not saying that I don't belive that they should wait to enter someone's home with a warrant. But leave it like you found it and be liable for anything that you broke.

Amazing. I just posted right above your post something that happened to me. I guess you didin't read it. And if you did, that you still think it's okay to just bust in.

Originally Posted by luvtolean

Clearly they busted down your door because you were criminals...

People just don't get it.

I like how Jerry Spence, the best defense attorney in the US puts it:

"What is a loophole for 'those criminals' will become your sacred Constitutional rights if, God forbid, you or a member of your family is ever charged with a crime."

One of the most successful defense attorneys of all time and he even burnt-out with the liars on ALL sides. Although, public apathy bothered him the most, I guess.

This is a famous quote from a personal hero of mine: (Caps on purpose.)

"THEY THAT CAN GIVE UP ESSENTIAL LIBERTY TO OBTAIN A LITTLE TEMPORARY SAFETY DESERVE NEITHER LIBERTY NOR SAFETY."

-Benjamin Franklin
(I hope you know who he was)

[luvtolean]

THE most successful. He has never lost a criminal defense trial. (though he did lose many times early in his career as a prosecutor) And it's not for lack of taking clients who the government had spent considerable resources defaming. People like Imelda Marcos, the folks from Ruby Ridge, and many others.

[CBR929RE]

Originally Posted by clutchslip

Some of you guys scare the hell out of me. Take the first sentence above - it is ASSUMED you must have done something wrong because someone with a badge says you have done something wrong.

This is what defense attorneys face all the time. Juries ASSUME the defendent MUST have done something otherwise why is he there in court?

I can site several personal experiences. One I just ended, where the law enforcement was not only wrong, but they lied.

Here is a true story from my twenties: I was staying at a friend's house. 5 of us guys got stinking drunk and we were crashed at about 10 AM that morning. Eight local cops crashed through the doors, came through windows, roughed us up, handcuffed us. And generally bullied us.

Why? Because three doors down there was a methodrine dealer. Glad they didn't open fire when they came busting in with their warrant for the WRONG ****ing people.

ok sure they had no right to bust in on you and your friends, but don't you think they had the right to bust in on the dealer down the hall?

and I agree with others, if they bust up the wrong place (whether they bust into the wrong place or the person is found innocent later) they should have to pay for any damages.

[luvtolean]

This has nothing to do with serving a warrant. Of course they have that right. It's how the warrant is served.

It's been a long held tradition, and held up by several Supreme Court cases in the past, that the police have to knock and wait before entering. (My GF actually studied several cases pertaining to waiting long enough for her recent law school final in Crim law. She came home stunned this had made it through the Supreme Court, especially Scalia's opinion.)

It's this little thing about "presumed innocence" that the Constitution has heretofore upheld.

Our lovely conservative government has been doing a great job of presumed guilt lately though...

[CBR929RE]

Originally Posted by luvtolean

This has nothing to do with serving a warrant. Of course they have that right. It's how the warrant is served.

It's been a long held tradition, and held up by several Supreme Court cases in the past, that the police have to knock and wait before entering. My GF actually studied several cases pertaining to waiting long enough for her recent law school final in Crim law. She came home stunned this had made it through the Supreme Court.

It's this little thing about "presumed innocence" that the Constitution has heretofore upheld.

Our lovely conservative government has been doing a great job of presumed guilt lately though...

I agree with you but there's also the issue of whats "a reasonable amount of time"? sure kicking the door down first and asking questions later does give the notion that you're presumed guilty first.

[luvtolean]

That "notion" has long been spelled out by Supreme Court decisions. I believe it was like 5-10 seconds.

Maybe a LEO can help me...and I'll ask my GF when she gets home as I'm sure she'll know.