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.

(Herald Tribune (SW Florida))   Remember those warrantless door to door searches everyone was okay with in Boston because it was a unique circumstance and other police agencies would never try it? Welcome to the new America   (heraldtribune.com) divider line 592
    More: Asinine, Louise Goldsberry, United States Marshals Service, police raid, home invasions  
•       •       •

25515 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Jul 2013 at 6:02 PM (38 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-07-20 07:39:02 PM
fnordfocus
And cases like this, where Officers don't think badges and uniforms make them look badass enough, only make it easier. Where I live only a minority of Police wear clearly identifiable uniforms, and they're trending towards unmarked vehicles with civilian plates.


The complete unmarked vehicles with civilian plates is used alot during prime time DWI hours to find drunk people.
 
2013-07-20 07:39:32 PM
scifiinterfaces.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-07-20 07:40:04 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

Your argument here is, boiled down, the biatch shouldn't complain because its for her own good.

My argument here is that if the officer heard screaming from inside the apartment he had a legitimate right and duty to investigate the source of that screaming in case the woman inside was in peril.  Entering for that purpose would be entirely legally and morally justified.  The fact that the screaming was because of another office on the other side of the apartment with a gun is irrelevant if the officer who entered did not know that.

If he entered because he believed the subject was in there, but did not have a warrant to enter the premises, he seems to be legally justified according to the FL statute, but morally I see more problems there.


And yet the officer stated he entered because they didn't open up proving the guy was in there, after refusing to produce ID when asked, not because he heard screaming. Funny the things you learn when you RTFA.

/but, with your head so far up all things big government's ass, I can see how reading the article could be hard.
 
2013-07-20 07:41:24 PM
The police are not here to protect us, they are here to arrest us.  They've got to keep those private prisons full.
 
2013-07-20 07:41:28 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

Your argument here is, boiled down, the biatch shouldn't complain because its for her own good.

My argument here is that if the officer heard screaming from inside the apartment he had a legitimate right and duty to investigate the source of that screaming in case the woman inside was in peril.  Entering for that purpose would be entirely legally and morally justified.  The fact that the screaming was because of another office on the other side of the apartment with a gun is irrelevant if the officer who entered did not know that.

If he entered because he believed the subject was in there, but did not have a warrant to enter the premises, he seems to be legally justified according to the FL statute, but morally I see more problems there.

Out of curiousity... how do you feel about the search of the apartment after the two inhabitants were outside and handcuffed? (assuming they were not given permission by the lady... which I sincerely doubt they even asked for).


That I don't necessarily agree with.  Once the two identified themselves and were found not to be criminals, in peril, or the guy they were looking for, I'm not quite sure what the justification for searching the apartment would be if the two told them they were the only ones home.

On a similar note, I don't agree with the house to house searches that happened after the Boston bombing.

I'm in no way advocating for a police state or for the police to have the unimpeded right to enter your property, I just think that the particular case in the article could possibly have been legit depending on why the officer entered in the first place.
 
2013-07-20 07:41:38 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Quick question about "home invasions".

I don't think I ever heard the term before the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, now it is on local news like a talking point (of course, it is). Do they really happen (other than SWAT team raids)?


Yes. Obviously a non-neutral source, but it links to real news stories.
 
2013-07-20 07:41:55 PM
Lessee: "open up its the Police!"
And I believe them because...
 
2013-07-20 07:42:18 PM
Good thing the bad guys aren't allowed to say, "Open up, I'm the police".
 
2013-07-20 07:42:48 PM

Enemabag Jones: But I do remember some quote about one of the primary reasons the United States had to stop the Vietnam war. Something about running out of of people from socially marginalized economic classes to draft. When the white middle class sees a problem, then it gets handled.


And the government, big business, and Wall Street have been doing there best to abolish the middle class for the last decade.

Coincidence?
 
2013-07-20 07:43:00 PM

TuteTibiImperes: I don't see a police over-reach in this.  If an officer was driving past my house and heard loud screaming in terror I'd want him to come in as I very well could be in mortal danger.  Perhaps the guy was a bit gruff in his language, but he identified himself as a police officer and the couple delayed allowing him entry, and then the lady refused to lower her weapon.  She's frankly lucky that she didn't get shot.


You're either a troll or a farking idiot. The moron cop, without identifying himself, pointed a gun at her head. And because some nut job was pointing a gun, with a laser sight mind you, at her head she started screaming and got her gun. And her screaming is now justification for them breaking in and shooting her. Only by the good grace and extreme restraint shown by the officer she wasn't shot and she should be kissing that officer's feet every morning thanking him she is still alive.

You sir are a farking moron.
 
2013-07-20 07:43:04 PM

TuteTibiImperes: If I'm understanding the timeline of this correctly:

1. Lady sees a guy in a hunting vest pointing a gun at her while she's washing dishes (I'm assuming she saw him through a window as mysterious hunting-vest-dude apparently disappears from the rest of the story, perhaps it was one of the officers)

2. Lady starts screaming (understandably) and crawls across the floor to get her gun

3. There's a banging on the door and someone identifying themselves as a police officer requests entry (which is understandable considering he just heard screaming coming from inside the apartment)

4. After the door doesn't open, the police force it open, again, which is understandable - warrants aren't needed for exigent circumstances, and he just heard a lady screaming and is apparently aware that there's reported fugitive, possibly armed, in the area

5.  Because he's concerned for her safety and there is a possible armed fugitive, he comes in fully armed, and rightfully tells her to put down her weapon.

6.  The boyfriend asks to come out, he's let out, and immediately handcuffed, appropriately, as the police don't know who he is, if this is a domestic dispute, if he's the fugitive, etc, better safe than sorry - restrain him and then figure out what's going on

7.  The lady is screaming things that aren't related to the situation (being an American citizen does not give you the right to hold a gun on a police officer or to disobey their orders in that type of situation) but is finally calmed down by the boyfriend after he sees the other police outside.

8. Lady puts her gun down, the house is searched (there was a confrontation inside the home, screaming coming from it, it seems reasonable to me)

9. The situation is explained to the lady and her boyfriend, and they're let go

I don't see a police over-reach in this.  If an officer was driving past my house and heard loud screaming in terror I'd want him to come in as I very well could be in mortal danger.  Perhaps the guy was a bit gruff in his language, but he identified himself as a police officer and the couple delayed allowing him entry, and then the lady refused to lower her weapon.  She's frankly lucky that she didn't get shot.


Fascist
 
2013-07-20 07:43:26 PM

Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.


These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)
 
2013-07-20 07:43:36 PM
Bravo Two:

And yet the officer stated he entered because they didn't open up proving the guy was in there

It's possible he heard the screaming as well and that's one of the reasons he was concerned that no one opened the door.  We don't know every detail of how it happened, so there's no reasons to assume that the officers actions were malicious.  Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.
 
2013-07-20 07:44:03 PM

TuteTibiImperes: If I'm understanding the timeline of this correctly:

1. Lady sees a guy in a hunting vest pointing a gun at her while she's washing dishes (I'm assuming she saw him through a window as mysterious hunting-vest-dude apparently disappears from the rest of the story, perhaps it was one of the officers)


Did the police show any evidence of caring about a guy in a hunting vest pointing a gun at he? No, they did not. The only concern for safety expressed by the only policeman interviewed was for himself. This is indeed a fine piece of trollwork but leave it at that, TT. Your premise does not stand up to the least little bit of examination.
 
2013-07-20 07:44:41 PM

aerojockey: I'm going to opine that this is a "not the whole story case" and everyone involved is stupid, lying somewhat, but not wholly unjustified.

Also, the police might want to think about setting up a perimeter while they wait ten minutes for a warrant in these situations, even if it's a bit more expensive.  Think of it as an investment in public relations.


I always assume this is the case... and if it's something I care about... I go searching for other sources. Right now... everything I find refers to the linked story as the source... that's a potential red flag.

That said... even if just the words in quotes attributed to the douche officer are correct... and everything else is made up... there's some serious explaining to do. Dude said a lot of wrong things. I'm hopeful that some other "news" outlets will pick this up and investigate further... but we'll see.
 
2013-07-20 07:44:43 PM

TuteTibiImperes: vudutek: TuteTibiImperes: If I'm understanding the timeline of this correctly:

I don't see a police over-reach in this.  If an officer was driving past my house and heard loud screaming in terror I'd want him to come in as I very well could be in mortal danger.  Perhaps the guy was a bit gruff in his language, but he identified himself as a police officer and the couple delayed allowing him entry, and then the lady refused to lower her weapon.  She's frankly lucky that she didn't get shot.

SO, all the cops need to do is laser-sight the occupants to get someone to scream, and warrants are no longer required? And you seem to be ok with this?

The courts have long held that warrantless searches are legal if there are exigent circumstances, such as the officer's belief that someone is in mortal danger.

The officer at the door did not likely know that the woman was screaming because she possibly saw another officer through the window.  To his knowledge he was in an area where there was a reported fugitive, and there was a woman screaming in terror inside of her apartment.  It was his duty to protect the public safety to enter that apartment to make sure she wasn't being murdered, raped, etc.

Everything that came afterward seems to be SOP because there was a gun pointed at the officer and someone else in the apartment who (as far as the officer knew) may have been responsible for why she was screaming.


The cop MADE the woman scream. To put it another way, cop stands outside and shoots someone inside. He now gets to enter the residence because "shots have been fired inside". No, the law doesn't work that way.
 
2013-07-20 07:44:47 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

And yet the officer stated he entered because they didn't open up proving the guy was in there

It's possible he heard the screaming as well and that's one of the reasons he was concerned that no one opened the door.  We don't know every detail of how it happened, so there's no reasons to assume that the officers actions were malicious.  Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.


Uhhhh, what benefit of the doubt. He clearly stated it himself in the interview. God, you -are- a moron.
 
2013-07-20 07:46:02 PM

Bravo Two: TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

And yet the officer stated he entered because they didn't open up proving the guy was in there

It's possible he heard the screaming as well and that's one of the reasons he was concerned that no one opened the door.  We don't know every detail of how it happened, so there's no reasons to assume that the officers actions were malicious.  Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Uhhhh, what benefit of the doubt. He clearly stated it himself in the interview. God, you -are- a moron.


One statement based on one interview in one article does not the full story make.
 
2013-07-20 07:46:08 PM

Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.

These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)


Personally, I'm okay with this. Better that a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent be harmed.
 
2013-07-20 07:46:12 PM

bhcompy: Cops aren't your friends or your enemies, they're just strangers with guns.  How do you treat strangers with guns that you meet?


I've met plenty of strangers with guns at the range.

One or two were dumb enough I though they might shoot me by accident, but I didn't think any of them would kill me deliberately.  I can't say the same about Cops I've met.
 
2013-07-20 07:46:24 PM
The problem is society WANTS and NEEDS assholes like these to be cops. We need the jerk A- type personality. We all have a given set of personality traits that make us who we are. We can't just switch our being based on certain circumstances we encounter.
This asshole is a US Marshall on a serious fugitive hunt. This event is a societal and law enforcement paradox.

Ask yourself this? can someone with a demure, laidback, non aggressive, really easy going personality be effective at his job? Do you even want someone like this to hunt down really bad people? The answer is NO we actually want and expect assholes to be cops because ironically by definition to catch assholes you're most likely one yourself.
 
2013-07-20 07:46:48 PM

Bacontastesgood: Maybe someday the prick cop will have a warrantless knock on his door with a tac team and a red dot on his forehead.


God does sometimes serve up that kind of ironic justice.
 
2013-07-20 07:47:28 PM

Weaver95: I don't think anyone really wants to stop and admit to themselves just how terrified our culture is these days.  one more big terror scare and that might be enough to push our culture over the edge into psychotic paranoia.


might?
have you seen a teaparty rally?
:D
 
2013-07-20 07:47:34 PM

Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.

These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)


*sigh*
Hope springs eternal. Hey, I reached YOU.

Anyway, I'm going to a seminar next weekend where we'll be talking about stuff like this; I need to keep my mind and rhetoric sharp.
 
2013-07-20 07:48:01 PM
Wow, the paranoia in this thread from otherwise reasonable farkers is palpable.

If you're this scared of the police, then maybe they should be abolished.
 
2013-07-20 07:48:05 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two: TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

And yet the officer stated he entered because they didn't open up proving the guy was in there

It's possible he heard the screaming as well and that's one of the reasons he was concerned that no one opened the door.  We don't know every detail of how it happened, so there's no reasons to assume that the officers actions were malicious.  Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt.

Uhhhh, what benefit of the doubt. He clearly stated it himself in the interview. God, you -are- a moron.

One statement based on one interview in one article does not the full story make.


When it is a self admission by the officer who committed the act it is.

This was not a third party witness. This was not the victim. This was the cop himself stating his justification for bursting in. I'm sure if he had done it based on screaming, he would have said so. Take the cop's dick out of your mouth. Cops are not our friends, and they state their intentions clearly over and over again.
 
2013-07-20 07:48:20 PM
This wouldn't be necessary if the police didn't have to worry about citizens with guns. Without that threat, the police could have been in and out quickly. You GunNuttersTMare going to get some innocent people killed.
 
2013-07-20 07:48:37 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

Your argument here is, boiled down, the biatch shouldn't complain because its for her own good.

My argument here is that if the officer heard screaming from inside the apartment he had a legitimate right and duty to investigate the source of that screaming in case the woman inside was in peril.  Entering for that purpose would be entirely legally and morally justified.  The fact that the screaming was because of another office on the other side of the apartment with a gun is irrelevant if the officer who entered did not know that.

If he entered because he believed the subject was in there, but did not have a warrant to enter the premises, he seems to be legally justified according to the FL statute, but morally I see more problems there.


Fyi to those so upset at tutetibilmperes here:

If he is trolling he managed to snag you all with a bunch of if-then statements whose 'tgen' you are trying to apply to situations which you disagree that the 'if' was present. Are you really all this stupid?

Farkers, once cops are mentioned they get so emotional that the most basic of logical structures is beyond their understanding. You guys get as dumb as the tea party when it comes to these threads.
 
2013-07-20 07:49:05 PM

Weaver95: I have friends of mine who believe themselves to be fierce conservatives and believe that government should be extremely limited....and yet they blindly support the war on drugs and the war on terror, believing that the bill of rights is an impediment and that we can trust law enforcement not to abuse it's authority over us. I personally don't understand their mindset but there you go.


The one that gets me is the same people that don't think the government can handle a sewer replacement job without farking it up, totally believe the government can try and put people to death without farking it up.  Reminds me of stuff I've read about life in the Soviet Gulag.  There were always these true believers/good communists who thought somehow it was all a big mistake they were locked up and at some point the powers that be were going to realize this and they would get out.

I have a personal rule and every time I ignore it I get burned. If you see someone do something to someone else, just wait and they'll do it to you to eventually.
 
2013-07-20 07:49:44 PM

Bravo Two: Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.

These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)

Personally, I'm okay with this. Better that a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent be harmed.


I'd be OK with it as well, with an exception being made for situations in which there is believed to be a victim in danger inside.  I'm also fully onboard with rather seeing one hundred guilty go free that one innocent convicted.

I'm all for checks and balances against the system, but I'd rather take the compassionate position and not assume that something was done out of malice, and that there's always more to the story than what we hear in media blurbs.
 
2013-07-20 07:50:13 PM

IlGreven: Wow, the paranoia in this thread from otherwise reasonable farkers is palpable.

If you're this scared of the police, then maybe they should be abolished.


I've been saying that for years, along with the war on drugs.
 
2013-07-20 07:50:29 PM

Sir Cumference the Flatulent: FTFA:Goldsberry wasn't arrested or shot despite pointing a gun at a cop, so Wiggins said, "She sure shouldn't be going to the press."

That sounds like a threat to me.I have a feeling that if there's a lawsuit, there might be a one-car "accident" or she might get pulled over and a bag of meth or coke is suddenly going to materialize in her car.


I'd agree with that assessment.
When I had cause to sue the local police, my car ended up being vandalized twice within days of filing the suit, and I kept getting weird phone calls all hours of the night.

I ended up leaving the area until the suit was settled, out of fears that I'd end up with an unexplained sack of meth in the car, or worse.
 
2013-07-20 07:50:34 PM

Smackledorfer: TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two:

Your argument here is, boiled down, the biatch shouldn't complain because its for her own good.

My argument here is that if the officer heard screaming from inside the apartment he had a legitimate right and duty to investigate the source of that screaming in case the woman inside was in peril.  Entering for that purpose would be entirely legally and morally justified.  The fact that the screaming was because of another office on the other side of the apartment with a gun is irrelevant if the officer who entered did not know that.

If he entered because he believed the subject was in there, but did not have a warrant to enter the premises, he seems to be legally justified according to the FL statute, but morally I see more problems there.

Fyi to those so upset at tutetibilmperes here:

If he is trolling he managed to snag you all with a bunch of if-then statements whose 'tgen' you are trying to apply to situations which you disagree that the 'if' was present. Are you really all this stupid?

Farkers, once cops are mentioned they get so emotional that the most basic of logical structures is beyond their understanding. You guys get as dumb as the tea party when it comes to these threads.


Have you been chewing on lead paint?
 
2013-07-20 07:50:57 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Quick question about "home invasions".

I don't think I ever heard the term before the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping, now it is on local news like a talking point (of course, it is). Do they really happen (other than SWAT team raids)?


Google News "Home invasion"
 
2013-07-20 07:51:28 PM
I bet prior to this encounter she was another water carrier for authority.  As is most of the people in our country -until they have something like this hit close to home.

The prevalence for these types of encounters correlates highly along class, with the lower classes seeing it much more frequently.  Those behind gated communities will likely never have to worry about it.  And that is by design.

But it's not class warfare. /snark
 
2013-07-20 07:54:25 PM

JerkyMeat: TuteTibiImperes: If I'm understanding the timeline of this correctly:

1. Lady sees a guy in a hunting vest pointing a gun at her while she's washing dishes (I'm assuming she saw him through a window as mysterious hunting-vest-dude apparently disappears from the rest of the story, perhaps it was one of the officers)

2. Lady starts screaming (understandably) and crawls across the floor to get her gun

3. There's a banging on the door and someone identifying themselves as a police officer requests entry (which is understandable considering he just heard screaming coming from inside the apartment)

4. After the door doesn't open, the police force it open, again, which is understandable - warrants aren't needed for exigent circumstances, and he just heard a lady screaming and is apparently aware that there's reported fugitive, possibly armed, in the area

5.  Because he's concerned for her safety and there is a possible armed fugitive, he comes in fully armed, and rightfully tells her to put down her weapon.

6.  The boyfriend asks to come out, he's let out, and immediately handcuffed, appropriately, as the police don't know who he is, if this is a domestic dispute, if he's the fugitive, etc, better safe than sorry - restrain him and then figure out what's going on

7.  The lady is screaming things that aren't related to the situation (being an American citizen does not give you the right to hold a gun on a police officer or to disobey their orders in that type of situation) but is finally calmed down by the boyfriend after he sees the other police outside.

8. Lady puts her gun down, the house is searched (there was a confrontation inside the home, screaming coming from it, it seems reasonable to me)

9. The situation is explained to the lady and her boyfriend, and they're let go

I don't see a police over-reach in this.  If an officer was driving past my house and heard loud screaming in terror I'd want him to come in as I very well could be in mortal danger.  Perhaps the guy was a bit gruff in his language, but he identified himself as a police officer and the couple delayed allowing him entry, and then the lady refused to lower her weapon.  She's frankly lucky that she didn't get shot.

Fascist


"Fascism."
 
2013-07-20 07:56:22 PM

yet_another_wumpus: Quick question about "home invasions".

I don't think I ever heard the term before the Elizabeth Smart kidnapping,


I think the phase was coined some time in the mid or late 90's but the act itself is even older than the Manson Tate/LaBianca killings.
 
2013-07-20 07:56:43 PM

Gyrfalcon: Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.

These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)

*sigh*
Hope springs eternal. Hey, I reached YOU.

Anyway, I'm going to a seminar next weekend where we'll be talking about stuff like this; I need to keep my mind and rhetoric sharp.


That should be fun. No knock warrants are stupid and some day people will realize drugs aren't a big deal. Exigent circumstances will always exist, though obviously 'nobody let us in' really shouldn't be considered a valid reason to enter.
 
2013-07-20 07:57:36 PM

See You Next Tuesday: ThatDarkFellow: If Obama had a pack of thugs destroying civil liberty they would look like these gentleman

If Fark had a village idiot he would type something about Obama out of the clear blue.


So you hold Obama completely unaccountable for the continued police over reach in our nation?

Son, you need Jesus.
 
2013-07-20 07:58:17 PM

TuteTibiImperes: Bravo Two: Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.

These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)

Personally, I'm okay with this. Better that a hundred guilty men go free than an innocent be harmed.

I'd be OK with it as well, with an exception being made for situations in which there is believed to be a victim in danger inside.  I'm also fully onboard with rather seeing one hundred guilty go free that one innocent convicted.

I'm all for checks and balances against the system, but I'd rather take the compassionate position and not assume that something was done out of malice, and that there's always more to the story than what we hear in media blurbs.


Nothing was done out of malice, it was done out of an overblown sense of authority. The cop had to get his man and used every excuse to find him, legal or not. These people got caught in the way when they didn't immediately comply.

The problem is not malice on behalf of the cops, most act this way because they believe its for the common good. The problem is that they exercise their authority far beyond their legal mandate, doing harm to the citizenry at large for dubious gain, and have come to expect a synabulent public who will go along with it. Cops, like politicians, are there to serve the people and act only when they are given cause by way of a warrant or direct threat. Exigent circumstances are the slippery slope between having actual probable cause and merely having to come up with a decent excuse.
 
2013-07-20 07:58:20 PM

TuteTibiImperes: The article states that she was never arrested, and while it doesn't explicitly state that he wasn't, it say that they just handcuffed him for half an hour while they searched then released him, I'm assume that he was just detained as well and not arrested.


That's enough to show up in a background check, so you're pretty much farked when it comes to getting a job.
 
2013-07-20 07:58:37 PM
fark cops; that is all.
 
2013-07-20 07:59:29 PM

Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: Smackledorfer: Gyrfalcon: There's a very easy way to prevent this ever happening again:

Disallow no-knock warrants.

No-knock warrants were originally allowed because cops, prosecutors and other law&order types were afraid that the knock-and-announce requirements would give evil drug dealers and other thugs a chance to destroy evidence, flee out the back, etc. So judges started signing off on no-knock warrants because of the dangers that when the door was finally answered, there would be no evidence to find.

Well, so be it. No more no-knock warrants, and if the evidence is gone by the time the crooks answer the door, then that's going to be the price of doing business. Is that how people want to proceed? Because it's an easy fix if you want it.

These threads are 99% derp from both sides. Do you expect to reach anyone with this post? :)

*sigh*
Hope springs eternal. Hey, I reached YOU.

Anyway, I'm going to a seminar next weekend where we'll be talking about stuff like this; I need to keep my mind and rhetoric sharp.

That should be fun. No knock warrants are stupid and some day people will realize drugs aren't a big deal. Exigent circumstances will always exist, though obviously 'nobody let us in' really shouldn't be considered a valid reason to enter.


Nor should "smells like marijuana" or "I heard something."
 
2013-07-20 07:59:29 PM

Hobodeluxe: the cop never said he heard her scream he said they went in because they didn't open the door right away


Strangely enough, the cops are forbidden from entering your property without a warrant. Period.
The only exception is exigent circumstances. 
They SAW the bad guy run in.
They thought your were going to destroy evidence. (which I always thought was lame)
Clear and present danger to kids in the house.

"Never heard her scream."
Um, no problem, just replay your audio recording and video recording of the event for the judge.
You dont have one? No problem. You are guilty of breaking and entering. Go directly to jail.
TADA

problem solved
/we are so farked in america. those AHOLES biatching about Obama are happy with the police acting like this? WHY???? AHOLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS
 
2013-07-20 07:59:45 PM
As one of the few people in the thread absolutely condemning the Boston PD's actions and pointing out that they had no warrant and they didn't have probable cause to believe that the suspect was in ALL of the houses they searched (warrants must be for a PARTICULAR place and person, as specified by the 4th Amendment), and someone who got just lambasted like I was supporting the terror suspects for saying that I didn't think the 4th Amendment should be suspended all willy nilly just because it's an "emergency"... fark all of you who said it wouldn't happen again, when the cops bust into your home, I hope they shoot your dogs and leave you traumatized... it's what you deserve for supporting this kind of asshattery of the highest degree.
 
2013-07-20 08:00:36 PM

fnordfocus: TuteTibiImperes: The article states that she was never arrested, and while it doesn't explicitly state that he wasn't, it say that they just handcuffed him for half an hour while they searched then released him, I'm assume that he was just detained as well and not arrested.

That's enough to show up in a background check, so you're pretty much farked when it comes to getting a job.


Lying once again?

Of course you are.
 
2013-07-20 08:00:44 PM

namatad: Hobodeluxe: the cop never said he heard her scream he said they went in because they didn't open the door right away

Strangely enough, the cops are forbidden from entering your property without a warrant. Period.
The only exception is exigent circumstances. 
They SAW the bad guy run in.
They thought your were going to destroy evidence. (which I always thought was lame)
Clear and present danger to kids in the house.

"Never heard her scream."
Um, no problem, just replay your audio recording and video recording of the event for the judge.
You dont have one? No problem. You are guilty of breaking and entering. Go directly to jail.
TADA

problem solved
/we are so farked in america. those AHOLES biatching about Obama are happy with the police acting like this? WHY???? AHOLESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS


I for one am not okay with it, and also biatch about Obama, the NSA, etc.
 
2013-07-20 08:00:57 PM

Pray 4 Mojo: davidphogan: Shostie: Listen, people. All I'm saying is that Reggatta de Blanc is a damn fine album.

And yeah, the Police aren't your friends, but I think that's just Sting and his ego. Andy Summers seems like a nice enough guy.

I have nothing against Stewart Copeland.

Really... he's an asshole.


I don't know much about him other than the fact that he's a fantastic drummer.

But he does come off as a bit of a dick.
 
2013-07-20 08:02:30 PM
You get what you (don't) vote for, America.
 
2013-07-20 08:02:59 PM
This is why I have claymore anti-personnel mines built into all the external corners and both sides of all the entry doors of my house facing outward. Anybody out there playing cowboy with my constitutional rights ... POP gets it.

/They're also installed in the rear quarter panels and doors of my vehicles.
//Haha, LOL, just kidding. This is fark, right?
 
Displayed 50 of 592 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report