Thread: Politics of Freedom Loss

Ordinarily, my first impulse is to simply look away from John Stossel. However, the piece below, written by him, is eloquently descriptive of one of the serious losses of personal freedom which the American People now must endure, "illegal search and seizure" being near the top of my list of serious breaches to our freedom in this country.

Thoughts, anyone?

"Legalise drugs" seems to be one of the conclusions able to be drawn from the article.
But that debate's been done already.

Most of the time the law enforcement people talk with a judge befor they start busting down someones doors. They also get a warrant at times to search peoples homes but from time to time do not get it due to different reasons but most of the time they do get the warrant. I can't find out what the percentages are about when they do get warrants and when not. This article never discusses if there were warrants issued or not making this entire rant very weak.

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Most of the time the law enforcement people talk with a judge befor they start busting down someones doors. They also get a warrant at times to search peoples homes but from time to time do not get it due to different reasons but most of the time they do get the warrant. I can't find out what the percentages are about when they do get warrants and when not. This article never discusses if there were warrants issued or not making this entire rant very weak.

You then believe, given the possession of a search warrant, that forcefully entering private premises unannounced is a perfectly acceptable means of ingress? Given that residents whether guilty of criminal activity or not, are not expecting such "breaking and entering" to be a legally-enacted event, might they not react violently believing it to be criminals and not police? Under that consideration, the lives are both the civilian and police are jeopardized unnecessarily, are they not? jocular

Originally Posted by jocular

You then believe, given the possession of a search warrant, that forcefully entering private premises unannounced is a perfectly acceptable means of ingress?

Depends on what is authorized in the warrant.

Given that residents whether guilty of criminal activity or not, are not expecting such "breaking and entering" to be a legally-enacted event, might they not react violently believing it to be criminals and not police? Under that consideration, the lives are both the civilian and police are jeopardized unnecessarily, are they not?

Yes, and thus courts should only issue such warrants under extreme circumstances.

Originally Posted by billvon

[
Yes, and thus courts should only issue such warrants under extreme circumstances.

I am able to cite instances where no court issued the warrant, but rather they were verbal commitments made by telephone, supposedly granted by judges, no real proof of authenticity, the argument later being made that the time required to obtain a certified warrant would have caused a lost opportunity to apprehend known criminals.

I question the authenticity of these instances, to the extent that no means of verification means no proof of nonexistent plans of entrapment. jocular

Originally Posted by RedPanda

"Legalise drugs" seems to be one of the conclusions able to be drawn from the article.
But that debate's been done already.

Marijuana should have been legalized YEARS ago!

If John Stossel is for something, that at a glance might make sense, I have to reexamine the situation more closely to see what the catch/deceit/sophistry is.

Originally Posted by jocular

Originally Posted by cosmictraveler

Most of the time the law enforcement people talk with a judge befor they start busting down someones doors. They also get a warrant at times to search peoples homes but from time to time do not get it due to different reasons but most of the time they do get the warrant. I can't find out what the percentages are about when they do get warrants and when not. This article never discusses if there were warrants issued or not making this entire rant very weak.

You then believe, given the possession of a search warrant, that forcefully entering private premises unannounced is a perfectly acceptable means of ingress? Given that residents whether guilty of criminal activity or not, are not expecting such "breaking and entering" to be a legally-enacted event, might they not react violently believing it to be criminals and not police? Under that consideration, the lives are both the civilian and police are jeopardized unnecessarily, are they not? jocular

I definitely agree that Police entering your home without announcing themselves puts any armed home owner in serious danger. It's an unjustified risk. An armed home owner is within their rights to assume that anyone who breaks down their door is automatically an armed criminal and shoot them on sight.

I'm not against SWAT teams existing. But I definitely agree that they shouldn't be allowed to enter your home without first announcing themselves.

If the concern is that evidence might be destroyed, then perhaps the SWAT team could be allowed to raid, but be required to use only non-lethal weapons. Even against armed opponents. If the police want to burst in on you like that, then it is their duty to accept 100% of the risk.


The 4th Amendment grants the "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures"

By storming a house with lethal weapons unannounced, the police are certainly taking away that security.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...urth_Amendment

Originally Posted by jocular

I am able to cite instances where no court issued the warrant, but rather they were verbal commitments made by telephone, supposedly granted by judges, no real proof of authenticity, the argument later being made that the time required to obtain a certified warrant would have caused a lost opportunity to apprehend known criminals.

If law enforcement really has been doing searches/arrests without warrants and without immediate cause then _they_ should be the ones going to jail.

without warrants
hmm
how about illegal(unconstitutional) warrants?

add in that the nsa is contracting out surveillance to private companies


What should be :

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

-
See more at: Fourth Amendment - U.S. Constitution - FindLaw

Now look at the "pat-riot act"
which allows a judge in washington to issue a warrant fo someplace/someone in idaho, or warrants for multiple places and people, some of whom may be "un-named".
Claimed as a tool to protect us from terrorists, most of these warrants have been used for drug busts.

or This years congressional gem: cispa
CISPA will allow private sector firms to search personal and sensitive user data of ordinary U.S. residents to identify "threat information," which can then be shared with other opt-in firms and the U.S. government — without the need for a court-ordered warrant.

If you really value privacy
You ain't got none in the modern "connected" world.
sorry 'bout that

In much of America, abuse of power is common, as is corruption
add in the lack of privacy, and things could get ugly in one damned hurry.

.......................
That being said
Every time i felt it adviseable to remind a policeman that he had sworn an oath to protect my constitutional rights, I never had cause for a follow-on complaint.
(excepting one time in small town wisconsin wherein a political clique used "civil" laws to punish enemies and for revenue enhancement---
I seemed to have managed to get on at-least one of their "bad sides".
Fortunately(for me) they weren't all that bright, and accidentally used a statute that required jail time if defendent defaulted on a fine.
So, I went to court and swore that I would default on the fine, therefore, jail time required if found guilty, I demanded a free lawyer, jury trial, and change of venue. (what I neglected to mention to the 'judge', was that at that time, the wisconsin supreem court was deliberating about that specific issue, and that that point of law was unsettled.
After which, they didn't seem to want to play with me anymore. Charges dropped, and no further contact.)

IMHO
Children should be forced to memorize our constitution and bill of rights in our public schools.
Knowing your rights is key to preserving them for all of us.

There's a time to be polite, knock at the door and ask questions. Andy Griffith is a good choice for that role.

There's a time to knock down that door if it's locked, secure the inhabitants and collect the evidence before it's destroyed--Andy wouldn't be the best choice for that job. The 4th amendment isn't an absolute to protect someone from no-knock warrants, it's to protect someone from no-knock warrants for unreasonable probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Tens of thousands of such legal raids happen every year and of those only a handful are ever challenged as being illegal. In fact the overwelming majority show that the original probable cause that supported the no-knock warrant was accurate.

I think at this point bad warrants and abuse of police powers getting them is pretty minor problem.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There's a time to be polite, knock at the door and ask questions. Andy Griffith is a good choice for that role.

There's a time to knock down that door if it's locked, secure the inhabitants and collect the evidence before it's destroyed--Andy wouldn't be the best choice for that job. The 4th amendment isn't an absolute to protect someone from no-knock warrants, it's to protect someone from no-knock warrants for unreasonable probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Tens of thousands of such legal raids happen every year and of those only a handful are ever challenged as being illegal. In fact the overwelming majority show that the original probable cause that supported the no-knock warrant was accurate.

I think at this point bad warrants and abuse of police powers getting them is pretty minor problem.

In the case of seizures of private property, many of those arrested are totally unable to challenge legality, as they have nothing left of value to use for legal funding. Law enforcement is fully aware of that fact; they also know that augmentation of sagging proposed budgets is quite desirable. I have several attorney acquaintances who take on such cases fee free, based only on principle (hard to believe, principled lawyers, I know!). They tell of having successfully defended quite a few clients. jocular

Originally Posted by lynx_fox

there's a time to be polite, knock at the door and ask questions. Andy griffith is a good choice for that role.

There's a time to knock down that door if it's locked, secure the inhabitants and collect the evidence before it's destroyed--andy wouldn't be the best choice for that job. The 4th amendment isn't an absolute to protect someone from no-knock warrants, it's to protect someone from no-knock warrants for unreasonable probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Tens of thousands of such legal raids happen every year and of those only a handful are ever challenged as being illegal. In fact the overwelming majority show that the original probable cause that supported the no-knock warrant was accurate.

I think at this point bad warrants and abuse of police powers getting them is pretty minor problem.

applause!!!

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There's a time to be polite, knock at the door and ask questions. Andy Griffith is a good choice for that role.

There's a time to knock down that door if it's locked, secure the inhabitants and collect the evidence before it's destroyed--Andy wouldn't be the best choice for that job. The 4th amendment isn't an absolute to protect someone from no-knock warrants, it's to protect someone from no-knock warrants for unreasonable probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Tens of thousands of such legal raids happen every year and of those only a handful are ever challenged as being illegal. In fact the overwelming majority show that the original probable cause that supported the no-knock warrant was accurate.

I think at this point bad warrants and abuse of police powers getting them is pretty minor problem.

The problem isn't the warrant. The problem is the safety of the person in that home. If you charge in unannounced and the guy's armed, and he draws and fires (which is the sensible thing to do in a home invasion), now the police have no choice but to return fire, and instead of trial we're holding a funeral.

Demanding that the home owner confirm the identity of intruders is ridiculous. It makes self defense of any kind just that much harder.

The government keeps wearing away at the citizens' ability to take self defense into our own hands, forcing us to depend more and more on the police. The more we depend on the police, the less the power we have to push back against the government. As long as the people are able to manage temporarily without police, they are always free to fire their police force and hire a new one. It's a very important threat to be able to make. But if we depend utterly on the police for our safety, then we can't fire them even if they're corrupt.

Every employee likes to be in a position where they can't be fired. But if you let them get there, then you're at their mercy. Not the other way around.

Originally Posted by kojax

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

There's a time to be polite, knock at the door and ask questions. Andy Griffith is a good choice for that role.

There's a time to knock down that door if it's locked, secure the inhabitants and collect the evidence before it's destroyed--Andy wouldn't be the best choice for that job. The 4th amendment isn't an absolute to protect someone from no-knock warrants, it's to protect someone from no-knock warrants for unreasonable probable cause that a crime is being committed.

Tens of thousands of such legal raids happen every year and of those only a handful are ever challenged as being illegal. In fact the overwelming majority show that the original probable cause that supported the no-knock warrant was accurate.

I think at this point bad warrants and abuse of police powers getting them is pretty minor problem.

The problem isn't the warrant. The problem is the safety of the person in that home. If you charge in unannounced and the guy's armed, and he draws and fires (which is the sensible thing to do in a home invasion), now the police have no choice but to return fire, and instead of trial we're holding a funeral.

Demanding that the home owner confirm the identity of intruders is ridiculous. It makes self defense of any kind just that much harder.

The government keeps wearing away at the citizens' ability to take self defense into our own hands, forcing us to depend more and more on the police. The more we depend on the police, the less the power we have to push back against the government. As long as the people are able to manage temporarily without police, they are always free to fire their police force and hire a new one. It's a very important threat to be able to make.

If an employee gets it in their head that you can't fire them, or that they're not replaceable, they may start to get insubordinate. And of course every employee likes to be in a position where they can't be fired.

Frankly, if you give them enough rope....they'll hang themselves.

Had one. Thought he/she was invaluable. Came to office. She/he was going through the boss's desk. She/he/it was canned.

Originally Posted by kojax

The problem isn't the warrant. The problem is the safety of the person in that home. If you charge in unannounced and the guy's armed, and he draws and fires (which is the sensible thing to do in a home invasion)

Not if the police clearly identify themselves as police. Which is why they're always yelling "POLICE!" and wearing jackets that say that in big letters.

I think the Constitution has struck a pretty good balance between the rights of individuals and the need for society to protect itself. We sometimes err on both sides (too lenient/too strict) but I think overall we do a reasonable job.

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by kojax

The problem isn't the warrant. The problem is the safety of the person in that home. If you charge in unannounced and the guy's armed, and he draws and fires (which is the sensible thing to do in a home invasion)

Not if the police clearly identify themselves as police. Which is why they're always yelling "POLICE!" and wearing jackets that say that in big letters.

I think the Constitution has struck a pretty good balance between the rights of individuals and the need for society to protect itself. We sometimes err on both sides (too lenient/too strict) but I think overall we do a reasonable job.

Well said.

Not perfect, but overall pretty damn reasonable.

Yeah. That's true. If they announce themselves as police in clearly audible fashion, that would work. But they'd have to do it before the confusion starts, or else it would be easy for someone not to hear them.

If they batter down the door, and throw in a flash bang, and then everyone in the building is deafened by the noise before the officers burst through the door, then it would be hard to expect anyone to actually hear them say they're police.

The point made before I came in; whether a warrant can be considered 'legal' is not synonymous with counting it as appropriate, reasonable or proper.
U.S. Citizens have become pretty complacent about questionable behavior... Look at how tolerant we are of the TSA, who go above and beyond in disrespectful and invasive searches along with Stealing Your Stuff... And it's getting worse: Government report: TSA employee misconduct up 26% in 3 years - CNN.com

And do the U.S. Citizens ever stand up and say "NO?"
Nah, they just take it.

The TSA is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

Originally Posted by sculptor

The TSA is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

They and I have had our disagreements.

Other times they have been most helpful.

Depends if you get the power wielding one or the one who does their job right.

Originally Posted by sculptor

The TSA is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

I don't like them either, but putting them in the same camp as terrorist is a bit over the top. Getting pat downs, wanded and having to remove your shoes for a span, isn't quite the same as terror unless the flyer has some sort of problem perceiving reality. Now if people were being randomly pulled from the flight line, forced to endure cavity searches or be beaten, than you might have something.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

Originally Posted by sculptor

The TSA is a state sponsored terrorist organization.

I don't like them either, but putting them in the same camp as terrorist is a bit over the top. Getting pat downs, wanded and having to remove your shoes for a span, isn't quite the same as terror unless the flyer has some sort of problem perceiving reality. Now if people were being randomly pulled from the flight line, forced to endure cavity searches or be beaten, than you might have something.

*L* UNited kicked me off a flight....(FC to boot) because my eyes were red (from my glaucoma meds).

They didn't bother to check that I had been up at 4:00 a.m, to get the next flight and walked OFF the one plane and on to then next......with zero time in between.....

Idiots.

AND THEY BROKE MY GUITAR!

IF only they weren't the only buggy ride.....

The TSA has robbed me, and been damned belligerent while doing so.

Their rhetoric amounted to, "If I was being robbed, it was my fault".

I find their behavior to be rude, crude, and generally socially unacceptable.
(yet alone unconstitutional)
.............................

IF only they weren't the only buggy ride.....

driving from Hawaii to California could prove problematic.

Originally Posted by sculptor

The TSA has robbed me, and been damned belligerent while doing so.

So sue them! A lot of people have sued them and won a lot of money.

=================
Man With 4th Amendment Written on Chest Wins Trial Over Airport Arrest David Kravets
01.25.13
A Virginia man who wrote an abbreviated version of the Fourth Amendment on his body and stripped to his shorts at an airport security screening area won a trial Friday in his lawsuit seeking $250,000 in damages for being detained on a disorderly conduct charge. Aaron Tobey claimed in a civil rights lawsuit that in 2010 he was handcuffed and held for about 90 minutes by the Transportation Security Administration at the Richmond International Airport after he began removing his clothing to display on his chest a magic-marker protest of airport security measures.
============================

Their rhetoric amounted to, "If I was being robbed, it was my fault".

So make it their fault. And I bet an extra $250,000 for you wouldn't be so bad.

Originally Posted by babe

IF only they weren't the only buggy ride.....

They're not. Airports have the right to kick the TSA out and get their own private security. If you feel strongly about it, petition whoever administers your airport to do so.

Originally Posted by sculptor

the tsa has robbed me, and been damned belligerent while doing so.

Their rhetoric amounted to, "if i was being robbed, it was my fault".

I find their behavior to be rude, crude, and generally socially unacceptable.
(yet alone unconstitutional)

.............................

if only they weren't the only buggy ride.....

driving from hawaii to california could prove problematic.

scotty beam me up!

Originally Posted by billvon

Originally Posted by babe

IF only they weren't the only buggy ride.....

They're not. Airports have the right to kick the TSA out and get their own private security. If you feel strongly about it, petition whoever administers your airport to do so.

I fly out of SFO, ACV and KOA....I'm screwed.