If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Courthouse News Service)   Refusing to let the police use your home as a lookout? That's a smashed open door and assault and arresting and jailing and some looting by the police while you are away   (courthousenews.com) divider line 372
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

14052 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Jul 2013 at 5:03 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



372 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-05 05:24:54 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: OgreMagi: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

I hope the government forcibly requires you to bunk a bunch of marines in your home.

Uh, Marines are soldiers. So as such if the government tried to forcibly require me to house Marines they would in fact be trying to forciblyl require me to house soldiers, and that would be in violation of the 3rd Amendment.  You might want to try picking up a dictionary sometime and actually looking up the word "soldier."  You know, since Intelligence is definitely your dump stat I will look it up for you:

sol·dier
noun
\ˈsōl-jər\
Definition of SOLDIER
1a : one engaged in military service and especially in the army
 b : an enlisted man or woman
 c : a skilled warrior
2: a militant leader, follower, or worker
3a : one of a caste of wingless sterile termites usually differing from workers in larger size and head and long jaws
 b : one of a type of worker ants distinguished by exceptionally large head and jaws
4: one who shirks work

mm, pretty damned plain and only willful ...


And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Except for  the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.
 
2013-07-05 05:25:26 PM

TV's Vinnie: So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?


freedomfeens.com
 
2013-07-05 05:27:23 PM

Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Mock26: TV's Vinnie: Milo Minderbinder: Rincewind53: Jesus farking Christ.

They're right, that is a Third Amendment violation. Do you know how rare that is?

No, its not. Cops are not soldiers.

And Soldiers aren't really fighting "wars", but "police actions" and "military efforts".

Your mindless conformity, even towards a flagrant assault on the Bill of Rights as this has been (wearing a badge does not give them the right to help themselves to your stuff for their own personal use), will not make the cops hate you any less. It's nutless cowards like you who encourage asshole pig behavior like this.

Tell me, does it hurt having your head shoved so far up your own ass?  Does it make breathing difficult?  The third amendment is quite clear in that it applies to soldiers.  Let me repeat that word, SOLDIERS.  So, no one's 3rd Amendment rights have been violated.  And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did.

So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?

That would not be a violation of the 3rd Amendment.  That would be a violation of the 4th Amendment.

Why is it so hard for so many people to see the difference there?


Original intent vs. plain language. Stop acting like a child.
 
2013-07-05 05:29:12 PM

Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."


Actually, you are condoning it.
 
2013-07-05 05:29:37 PM

Mock26: Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.


Yes. Also, the Supremes haven't had opportunity to rule whether the 3rd applies only to enlisted military or to any armed government agents commandeering your home for their official purposes. It's by no means clear what they would do.
 
2013-07-05 05:29:53 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the other stuff that's in there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Feel free to get yourself a soapbox to stand on and enjoy your freedom of speech.  But don't you dare publish anything.  You are demanding the strictest use of word definitions when referring to the 3rd, so let's apply YOUR rules to the 1st.

Here's a clue. When deciding how things should go with the Constitution, always error on the side of freedom.
 
2013-07-05 05:32:35 PM
Uniform
Medals
Guns
Auxilliary weapons
Communications
Looting
Demanding to be quartered on private property
Central command unit
Lots of money behind them
Shooting people
Immune from prosecution.

Soldiers.
 
2013-07-05 05:34:18 PM

Mock26: Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.


Exactly.  Are you starting to get a farking clue?  The Supreme Court prefers to go with the INTENT of the Constitution, not the strictest definition of words.  So they interpret freedom of press as the right for EVERYONE to publish, not just "official journalists".  When looking at the 3rd, what is the intent?  The intent was to prevent the government from forcing private citizens from having to support the government in way that grossly violates the privacy and the sanctity of the home.  Which is EXACTLY what the Henderson police did.
 
2013-07-05 05:49:23 PM

Befuddled: The cops in this situation need jail time as they went way, way too far.


Same solution should be used for both fake rape victims and rogue cops.

If you falsely accuse somebody of rape, you should get, a minimum, the sentence that a convicted rapist would.

If you abuse your position of authority, you should get the same sentence that a criminal would have gotten.  For instance, illegal search and seizure would be the same penalty as armed robbery.  Breaking and entering would be, well, breaking and entering. Assault would be assault.  Really, I don't know why I'm itemizing these things.  The crime committed by a cop on duty or off duty should carry the same sentence as an MS-13 member committing it.

Oh, and you should be banned from public service forever.
 
2013-07-05 05:52:22 PM

hardinparamedic: TV's Vinnie: So, you have no problem with cops busting down your door, kicking you out, and trashing your home while you stand there helpless?

[freedomfeens.com image 640x510]


How can it be "straw man" when that was exactly what they did to their house?
 
2013-07-05 05:58:32 PM
A straw man argument is one wherein one attempts to assert that his opponent has a given position that they imply through inference and false deduction and then they pivot on "Well, if you think that!" and then refute the implied position via admonishing the opponent of the foolish stance therein.  Of that position.  That they never took, asserted or stated.  See- 11th grade, FARK, political debate.
 
2013-07-05 05:59:34 PM
"Cops kicked my door in, threatened my well being and stole my sh*t" isn't a straw man.
 
2013-07-05 06:00:11 PM

hardinparamedic: OgreMagi: And the first amendment very clearly prohibits abridging the freedom of the PRESS.  So you need to step away from the keyboard and stop publishing since you are not a journalist.

Well, yeah, if you ignore the other stuff that's in there.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Funny, you have no problem calling online communications "the press", and saying that sailors, marines, and airmen are "soldiers", but you have this problem with saying that one group of armed government enforcers (police) are completely distinct for Amendment III purposes from another group of armed government enforcers ("soldiers")

Amendment III specifies only soldiers.  The USMC and USN existed at the time Amendment III was enacted, and they weren't literally included.  Now, reasonably and sensibly you could easily see the framers intent was to protect the sanctity of the home from government occupation.  I'd think that the framers would be facepalming at the idea that it's not against Amendment III for a constablulary to forcibly quarter themselves in someones home, but for the Army it's not.

You seem to have it in your head that Amendment IV makes Amendment III obsolete, since police doing the same thing would be an Amendment IV violation, but it's an Amendment III violation if done by the Army.  Since they are separate amendments, passed at the same time, presumably there was an intended distinction there by the framers.

Then again, you seem to think that Amendment III only applies to Officers, and not Enlisted since you keep using the word "commissioned", that or I need to get out the Inigo Montoya "you keep saying that word" .jpg.

The ONLY Federal Court caselaw on the issue, from Engblom v. Carey, ruled on just 3 things (at the Appellate Court level)
1. The Army National Guard counts for Amendment III purposes.
2. Amendment III is incorporated to the states.
3. Houses that the occupants have legal tenancy to are protected under this right, they do not have to own the home outright.

Everything else is wholly debatable, since we have no other relevant Federal case law.  If you've got some mysterious Federal case that establishes that Amendment III applies to the USAF, USMC, USN and USCG but in no way to law enforcement, please cite it.

I'm debating from a framer's intent perspective, the idea that the whole reason Amendment III was passed was to protect the sanctity of the home from armed occupation and the ensuing loss of privacy, use of ones own house, and general imposition of armed government authority into ones home.

The police count just as much as the military.  In fact, I'd say that police with duty sidearms and arrest authority count for that purpose even more than military servicemembers without arrest power (and may well not even be issued firearms).
 
2013-07-05 06:42:16 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."

Actually, you are condoning it.


I don't like the guy, and I don't agree with his argument.  However, he isn't condoning it.  He's saying it isn't a violation of the 3rd.

It is not a violation of the 1st or 2nd.  Does saying that mean that I am condoning the actions?  Similarly, he feels it isn't a violation of the 3rd.  That doesn't mean he considers the actions legal, just that they didn't violate the 3rd.
 
2013-07-05 07:02:31 PM

JuggleGeek: TV's Vinnie: Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."

Actually, you are condoning it.

I don't like the guy, and I don't agree with his argument.  However, he isn't condoning it.  He's saying it isn't a violation of the 3rd.

It is not a violation of the 1st or 2nd.  Does saying that mean that I am condoning the actions?  Similarly, he feels it isn't a violation of the 3rd.  That doesn't mean he considers the actions legal, just that they didn't violate the 3rd.


Even if it's not the Third by definition, there's plenty of other violations these pigs had committed. They wanted to use the guy's place for a stakeout? Bad enough. Now, would some Fark Apologist please explain why the porkers smeared mustard and mayo all over the place? AFAIK, they were asking to use the property for a while, not conducting a search warrant. If they weren't hiding behind their badges, this would be a home invasion, plain & simple.
 
2013-07-05 08:10:39 PM

OgreMagi: Here's a clue. When deciding how things should go with the Constitution, always error on the side of freedom.


The freedom of speech is not absolute. It never has been. It does not extend to the victimization or incitement of violence towards others. It does not protect you from mediums which also do so, such as child pornography.

It also is not an absolute protection from non-Governmental sources.

You have the freedom to say what you like. However, your freedom to swing ends where my nose begins, you do not have the right to yell fire in a crowded theatre, and you do NOT have the freedom from professional and interpersonal consequences for saying things that are unpopular or offensive - only from Obama's evil jackbooted thugs.

Of course, this all detracts from the fact that we're debating whether this is a third or forth amendment violation, not that it's a violation of his rights, which we've already established.

TV's Vinnie: Even if it's not the Third by definition, there's plenty of other violations these pigs had committed


No one in this thread is defending these idiots, you daft troll. We're debating constituional nuances.
 
2013-07-05 09:00:21 PM

OgreMagi: Mock26: Except for the fact that the Supreme Court has ruled that the 1st Amendment does not apply only to the PRESS.

Exactly.  Are you starting to get a farking clue?  The Supreme Court prefers to go with the INTENT of the Constitution, not the strictest definition of words.  So they interpret freedom of press as the right for EVERYONE to publish, not just "official journalists".  When looking at the 3rd, what is the intent?  The intent was to prevent the government from forcing private citizens from having to support the government in way that grossly violates the privacy and the sanctity of the home.  Which is EXACTLY what the Henderson police did.


When looking at the 3rd Amendment the INTENT is SOLDIERS, as in members of the MILITARY.  Do you remember your history?  Do you remember why this Amendment was written into the Bill of Rights?  It was because the British forced colonials to house SOLDIERS (a.k.a. members of the military) in their homes.  The British were NOT forcing the colonials to house POLICE OFFICERS.
 
2013-07-05 09:07:48 PM

TV's Vinnie: Mock26: Because you seem to have missed the part where I said, "And if you were not such a mindless fool you would see that pointing out that simple fact does not mean that someone condones what they did."

Actually, you are condoning it.


Care to quote where I said that I was condoning what I did?  Go on, quote me.

In the mean time contemplate this hypothetical situation.  Bob is walking down the street while wearing a "Government sucks!" t-shirt.  To police officers see this, stop Bob, and force him to remove the shirt because it is offensive.  Sally witnesses all of this and then gets up on her soap box and starts yelling, "This man's 2nd amendment right has been violated!"  If someone steps up tells her, "Excuse me, Ma'am, but that is a violation of his 1st Amendment right" how is that condoning what the police did?  Care to explain that?
 
2013-07-05 11:28:53 PM

Mock26: When looking at the 3rd Amendment the INTENT is SOLDIERS, as in members of the MILITARY.


I disagree. I think the intent was armed agents of the government.
 
2013-07-05 11:55:51 PM
For the "police are/are not soliders" debate:

How about the police JUST NOT FARKING DO ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY CAUSE THIS FARKING DEBATE?

Isn't anyone horrified that it anything like this happened at all? Who gives a crap if it's constitutional or not, it's farking WRONG! Why is the biggest reaction shrugging our shoulders and going, "Well, yeah, that's cops these days." FFS.

/rant off
//yeah yeah, I know, ITGirl here. . . still pisses me off
 
2013-07-06 01:21:29 AM

Peki: How about the police JUST NOT FARKING DO ANYTHING REMOTELY RESEMBLING SOMETHING THAT MIGHT POSSIBLY CAUSE THIS FARKING DEBATE?


In an ideal world, we also wouldn't need a third and fourth amendment.

Peki: Isn't anyone horrified that it anything like this happened at all? Who gives a crap if it's constitutional or not, it's farking WRONG! Why is the biggest reaction shrugging our shoulders and going, "Well, yeah, that's cops these days." FFS.


No one is defending their behavior. Despite what the trolls seem to suggest. Even people who generally try to go out on a limb and explain why something might have happened. There is absolutely no defense for this. This is the very basic definition of abuse of power, and the very problem that demonstrates the system needs fixing.

However. That doesn't detract from the fact we can have a discussion on constitutional nuances on FARK and why or why not a civilian police officer might meet the definition of a soldier or military regular.
 
2013-07-06 02:40:35 AM

TV's Vinnie: Even if it's not the Third by definition, there's plenty of other violations these pigs had committed.


I agree.  And it appears to me that Mock agrees.  And the "you are condoning these actions" nonsense that you are spewing is, as someone pointed out before, nothing but a strawman argument.

I don't agree with him about whether this is a 3rd amendment issue.  I believe the intent of the 3rd is essentially "the gov can't just take over your house when they feel like it".  I made an argument above about the local mayor taking your house.  Nobody responded to that.  I believe the gov needs some sort of eminent domain system for certain things, like roads and lakes.  In order to do that, there should be discussion and court rulings ahead of time, which obviously did not happen here.  Short of those court rulings, I believe the 3rd makes it clear that the gov can't just come and kick you out of your house and start using it as their own. Despite the wording that says "soldiers", I believe it's clear that the intent is that the gov can't just kick you out at will and take over.

But the fact that he takes a more literal stance doesn't mean that he condones what happened.  The fact that he has said he does not condone it should be the end of your "he condones it" argument.  But you keep pushing it.
 
Displayed 22 of 372 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report