You think you are superior .. ???

Monk-Eye · 01-04-08, 01:32 PM

"Accepted Risks"

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

This whole warrantless wiretap thing is blown completely out of proportion. I, personally, have no fear of them.

Quote:

Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution#Text
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and 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."

!YELLING AT YOU!

stevenb · 01-04-08, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

"Accepted Risks"

!YELLING AT YOU!

Prepare for the common answer to this...

Well if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have to worry.

Lachean · 01-04-08, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

This whole warrantless wiretap thing is blown completely out of proportion. I, personally, have no fear of them.

Let me guess, you have nothing to hide? Well some of us may, and care about that particular constitutional right. Just because your privacy doesn't matter much to you does not justify any argument against our right to privacy.

When they came for our guns, I said nothing...

jallman · 01-04-08, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monk-Eye

"Accepted Risks"

!YELLING AT YOU!

Yell all you want. I see no violation of the 4th amendment as the warrantless wiretapping was aimed directly at terrorism, heavy drug trafficking, and organized crime. Further, before the taps were admissible in court, the probable cause still had to be established after the fact.

It's not like the warrantless taps were roving from home to home listening to a teenager talk about whether she should or shouldn't give it up on prom night. The CIA isn't interested in how bowled a high game at your league on tuesday. The FBI isn't going on fishing expeditions listening to granny gossip about all three of her daughters' good for nothing husbands.

Yeah, everyone has a right to be safe and secure in their homes. No one has a right to traffic information over communications lines to conspire to commit crimes.

jallman · 01-04-08, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenb

Prepare for the common answer to this...

Well if you're not doing anything wrong you don't have to worry.

Please don't transfer or project your lack of critical thinking onto me.

stevenb · 01-04-08, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Yell all you want. I see no violation of the 4th amendment as the warrantless wiretapping was aimed directly at terrorism, heavy drug trafficking, and organized crime. Further, before the taps were admissible in court, the probable cause still had to be established after the fact.

It's not like the warrantless taps were roving from home to home listening to a teenager talk about whether she should or shouldn't give it up on prom night. The CIA isn't interested in how bowled a high game at your league on tuesday. The FBI isn't going on fishing expeditions listening to granny gossip about all three of her daughters' good for nothing husbands.

Yeah, everyone has a right to be safe and secure in their homes. No one has a right to traffic information over communications lines to conspire to commit crimes.

It's funny how you cited the war on drugs as a valid reason to destroy people's fourth amendment rights.

Ever looked into what the war on drugs is actually doing? Ever seen the articles and the lawsuits of people who were caught up in the war on drugs... one particular case springs to mind... a black man with something like $400k saved up in a safe in his apartment... the police come and "find" some drug paraphilinia(sp?)... they seize all of his assets and his money and tell him to "prove" that he earned all that money legally.

Forget the clause in the bill of rights that says "Innocent until proven guilty." That guy is ****ed, and the local police are $400k richer. Not to mention the numerous stories of police and enforcement agencies collaberating to seize a person's property or assets for the better of the agency.

You sheep are all the same... protect me protect me... I don't care what happens to anyone else, as long as it doesn't happen to me! They're protecting me! Then you whine the loudest when what others are experiencing so you can be protected actually happens to you.

stevenb · 01-04-08, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jallman

Please don't transfer or project your lack of critical thinking onto me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Donald Scott

Donald Scott.

In an early morning drug raid on October 2, 1992, 31 officers from five police agencies break down the door to the multimillion dollar home of Donald Scott.

Frightened, Scott's wife screams, "Don't shoot me. Don't kill me." Hearing his wife's screams, Scott emerges from his bedroom holding a handgun, still groggy from a recent cataract operation. When Scott raises the gun in the direction of the police intruders, the raiding officers shoot him dead.

Despite assurances from the L.A. Sheriff's Department that Scott was farming more than 4,000 marijuana plants on his property, thorough search of Scott's property fails to yield any contraband. In fact, Scott's friends would later say he was adamantly opposed to illicit drugs.

Though Scott's grand Malibu ranch is in Ventura County, California, no Ventura police agency was represented among the five police agencies (the L.A. Sheriff's office, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Border Patrol, the National Guard and the National Park Service) that conducted the raid. A blistering subsequent investigation by Ventura County district attorney Michael Bradbury suggests why.

Bradbury found gross misstatements of fact, omissions, and outright falsehoods in the application for a search warrant issued by the L.A. sheriff's department. He found that the department had conducted numerous investigations of the ranch, including flyovers and firsthand visits, which found no evidence of marijuana cultivation. Finally, during a low-level flyover one DEA agent suggested to the sheriff's department that he had spotted some plants beneath tree cover that might be marijuana -- but stipulated that his observation ought not be the basis of a search warrant. On that evidence, the L.A. sheriff's department obtained its warrant.

Bradbury concluded that, confirming Donald Scott's fears, the L.A. sheriff's department conducted its raid for the purpose of seizing Donald Scott's property through drug asset forfeiture laws. Under federal law, the department would have been able divvy up proceeds from the $2.5 million ranch with the four other agencies joining in the investigation. Bradbury found documents in which the investigating agencies had expressed desire for Scott's land on various "wish lists," and one notation in which sheriff's department officials had taken note of the recent sale value of one parcel of Scott's land.

According to an L.A. deputy district attorney at the time, two of the agents conducting the raid posed for a triumphant photograph after Scott was shot and killed.

In January 2000, the L.A. Sheriff's Department settled with Scott's family for $5 million, though the terms of the settlement admitted no wrongdoing. In fact, officers from the department who conducted the raid have insisted from the beginning that both the raid and the shooting of Scott were justified, despite the absence of any illegal substances. L.A. Sheriff's Department Captain Larry Waldie told the Los Angeles Times, "I do not believe it was an illegal raid in any way, shape or form." Five years after the raid, Garry Spencer, the officer who both led the raid and who killed Scott told the same paper, "I don't consider it botched. I wouldn't call it botched because that would say that it was a mistake to have gone there in the first place, and I don't believe that."

Quote:

84-year-old Annie Rae Dixon, a bedridden paraplegic, is shot and killed after police officers from the nearby town of Kilgore break into her Tyler, Texas home.

They have the wrong address.

Police later say one raiding officer's weapon "accidentally" discharged, firing the bullet that struck and killed Dixon. A jury would later acquit the raiding officers of any wrongdoing.

Sources:

Carol J. Castaneda, "Texas community again divided; Shooting ignites new racial tension," USA Today, August 21, 1992, p. A10.

Robert Suro, "Police Shooting Focuses Black Anger in Texas City," New York Times, August 10, 1992, p. 10.

"Jury refuses to indict officer in black woman's death," United Press International, July 11, 1992.

Quote:

Andrea Baker, Erik Kush, Julie Madrigal.

July 23, 2004—AZ

Police conduct a massively armed raid on a home they suspect contains illegal assault weapons and ammunition. In a densely-populated, upscale neighborhood, a SWAT team from the Maricopa County Sheriff's Department, complete with an armored personnel carrier, uses grenade launchers to fire at least four rounds of tear gas into the windows of the home. The quarter-million dollar home catches fire shortly after officers enter.

As the homeowners evacuate, police officers chase the family's 10-month-old pit bull puppy back into the burning house with puffs from a fire extinguisher. The dog perishes in the flames. Police allegedly laugh at Andrea Baker, the dog's owner, as she cries at their cruelty.

Later, the brakes fail on the SWAT team's armored personnel carrier, causing it to lurch down the street and smash into a parked car. The car's owner, Julie Madrigal, had fled the car just moments earlier with her nine-year-old daughter after the two grew frightened by the firing of tear gas canisters by SWAT officers.

The home is completely destroyed. Nearby homes are also put at risk. Police find no assault weapons, only an antique shotgun and a nine-millimeter pistol, both of which are legally owned. Nevertheless, police arrest 26-year-old Erik Kush on outstanding traffic violations.

The sheriff of Maricopa County is Joe Arpairo, who made national headlines in the 1990s for his aggressive treatment of inmates and unconventional approaches to crime control. One member of Sheriff Arpairo's SWAT team once told CBS News reporter Jim Stewart the best part of being on the SWAT team is that, "You get to play with a lot of guns. That's what's fun. You know, everybody on this team is--you know, loves guns." Another adds, "Hey, the bottom line is it's friggin' fun, man. That's the deal. Nobody wants to take burglary reports."

and

The Phoenix Hell's Angels Raid.

July 8, 2003—AZ

In July 2003, police in Phoenix, Arizona conduct a pre-dawn drug raid on a Hell's Angels club. Police knock, then wait just six seconds before deploying a flashbang grenade and forcing their way into the clubhouse. Michael Wayne Coffelt, asleep at the time, awakes to the grenade and quickly arms himself with a pistol. When Coffelt, who thought the clubhouse was being robbed, approaches the door, Officer Laura Beeler shoots and wounds him.

Beeler would later claim that Coffelt fired at her, though a ballistics test confirmed that Coffelt never discharged his gun. Police find no drugs in the clubhouse. Prosecutors later bring charges against Coffelt for assaulting a police officer. In dismissing the charges, Maricopa Superior Court Judge Michael Wilkinson describes the raid as an "attack" in violation of the Fourth Amendment, and that Coffelt's actions were "reasonable behavior, given the hour and the fact that the house was under attack."

Wilkinson also determines that Beeler's mistaken belief that Coffelt had fired at her was also understandable, given the volatility of such a raid, and that she -- an officer trained in paramilitary procedures -- may have misinterpreted the flashbang grenade for a gunshot.

There are literally thousands more... should I continue? Maybe it is you who lacks critical thinking when it comes to such situations?

jallman · 01-04-08, 01:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenb

It's funny how you cited the war on drugs as a valid reason to destroy people's fourth amendment rights.

I never, ever made any assertion that people's 4th amendment rights should be "destroyed". That's just hysterical hyperbole nonsense you dreamed up.

Quote:

Ever looked into what the war on drugs is actually doing? Ever seen the articles and the lawsuits of people who were caught up in the war on drugs... one particular case springs to mind... a black man with something like $400k saved up in a safe in his apartment... the police come and "find" some drug paraphilinia(sp?)... they seize all of his assets and his money and tell him to "prove" that he earned all that money legally.

That has nothing to do with the Patriot Act or the wiretaps we were discussing. I should like to see a link to the specific story and then I can make a judgment for myself as to what transpired there.

Quote:

Forget the clause in the bill of rights that says "Innocent until proven guilty." That guy is ****ed, and the local police are $400k richer. Not to mention the numerous stories of police and enforcement agencies collaberating to seize a person's property or assets for the better of the agency.

Provide me with numerous links to your "numerous stories" and I will be happy to look them over.

Quote:

You sheep are all the same... protect me protect me... I don't care what happens to anyone else, as long as it doesn't happen to me! They're protecting me! Then you whine the loudest when what others are experiencing so you can be protected actually happens to you.

You emotional hysterics are all the same...it's about me, it's about me. I don't care about the safety and welfare of others as long as it remains about me! They're catering to me! Then you whine the loudest when something bad actually happens to you.

(Yay, the hysterics games is fun!!!)

bub · 01-04-08, 01:58 PM

I love derailing threads

jallman · 01-04-08, 01:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevenb

There are literally thousands more... should I continue? Maybe it is you who lacks critical thinking when it comes to such situations?

Am I supposed to be moved by the fact that the police screw up and ocassionally are crooked?

01-04-08, 01:58 PM	#29
bub R.I.P. Léo Join Date: Oct 2006 Last Seen: 03-14-10 05:28 AM Location: CEE Posts: 8,089 Thanks: 3,708 Thanked 1,665 Times in 1,095 Posts	Re: You think you are superior .. ??? I love derailing threads
	__________________ ===\|:-)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode