You have got to be fucking kidding me!
It’s a good thing for a corporation to have a sensitive AI assisted microphone at your door recording every sound that they then actually listen to to determine if they should share it with police (or whoever else they like) without permission, notification, or notice, and no warrant for this listening device that records sounds from inside for police use?!
Even though it’s Bezos!?

You have lost your mind and abandoned all right wing dogma to be a contrarian.

The “right circumstances” would be with the full knowledge and written permission of the purchaser/home owner/renter, not secretly (unless you caught this story) and without notice before or after, not even attempted notice, all after years of denial and silence on the issue.

“This family”?
This isn’t one case, Bob. It’s department policy and has been for a long time.

Agreed, it SHOULD be a big payday for these families… unfortunately that’s at taxpayer, not the police’s pension fund’s, expense….but so far in the years of this practice if the victims got anything it doesn’t seem to have payed enough to get the local government to stop it, or enough to excuse blatant and rampant abusive harassment of law abiding citizens as standard policy, even a revenue generator.

How much is the daily harassment of your children, wife, co workers, family, friends, and business contacts at their work and in their homes late at night for years by dozens of aggressive armed men trespassing and peeping in windows and threatening arrest and continued harassment if they can’t come inside to “talk” at 3 am, all because they know you….without you ever being convicted of a crime….worth?….guaranteed none of the victims of this policy have been paid that much.

It is nice to know you at least say you don’t support DeSantis style policing…so I guess you don’t support his candidacy?

Also interesting you love to dismiss constant violent civil rights violations like this by just claiming the victims will get a huge settlement and that makes it ok (most don’t, police have immunity from all but the absolute worst illegal violations, they don’t even pay to repair the doors they destroy breaking in homes with no warrant or the pets they kill while trespassing and spying on citizens….not even for the innocent people they murder when breaking into their homes at 3 am, and when they are brought to account, they often fight cases for decades first, forcing the victims to sue them over and over and over and over....expensive lawsuits against city hall that most victims can't afford to start)….but when it’s a public health issue where they’re considering forcing you to not become a biological viral lab, stopping you from mutating new viruses to release in America, suddenly your rights to be dangerously idiotic and anti science are sacrosanct, no amount of money could make up for a little ouchie, fuck those other people you kill and disable.
Anti vaxers should not only be denied insurance, but also be forced to pay for treatment of their victims.

Carnivore, which intercepted all of any targets internet traffic without a warrant, was fully implemented by 1997 and has since been replaced with software like NarusInsight that records all internet traffic through any isp....again with no warrant.
If you believe governments aren't capable of seeing everything you've ever done online, you're fooling yourself. There's no such thing as real internet privacy.
This is hardly new, but it remains upsetting.

The problem is that far too many wish to treat every encounter as if it's like this one.
Not every incident is an attack with a deadly weapon, for instance; the man with no warrants and with his hands up who was repeatedly shot along with his, now deceased, 6 year old child last week did not need the paranoia and defensiveness from the murdering cops.
The unnecessary paranoia and defensiveness displayed in that case has ruined at LEAST 5 lives permanently.

>> ^marinara:

The 4th amendment to the constitution (part of the bill of rights) could be used as a law for privacy.

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.

Does the bill of rights apply to states? Does the constitution disallow states from banning birth control, or just disallow the Federal government from banning birth control
wikipedia may clear this up.

While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Seizure is different that prohibiting the purchase of... and there is no search here...

The 4th amendment to the constitution (part of the bill of rights) could be used as a law for privacy.

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.

Does the bill of rights apply to states? Does the constitution disallow states from banning birth control, or just disallow the Federal government from banning birth control
wikipedia may clear this up.

While originally the amendments applied only to the federal government, most of their provisions have since been held to apply to the states by way of the Fourteenth Amendment.

heh, if you think that's a long post to make a point, you should see my discussion with SDGundamX under this video http://videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-on-the-error-of-evenhandedness

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if only it didnt take so many words to make the point =P

rambling is my curse

In reply to this comment by hpqp:
Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

Very well said.

In reply to this comment by smooman:
if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

if i may divulge in a bit of an embarassing story:

a few years back i had the cops called to my apartment on a domestic disturbance investigation. I was playing an online game and, as a hardcore gamer, i get into it and, often times, too much into it. I was frustrated and, like a mature adult, decided to punch out my living room furniture and curse and scream. about 20 minutes later i had two cops knocking on my door. i stepped outside and politely conversed with the officers who explained that they had a domestic disturbance call and asked me some questions, namely if i lived alone (i did) and if they could search my apartment. I politely refused consent without a warrant which they then asked me to stay there (outside) while they went to speak with the "witness". after that they came back down, sternly told me to turn around and put my hands behind my back. I aggressively voiced my disgust but complied (more on this in a minute). they cuffed me, sat me down, and searched my apartment, inevitably finding no one else in the house at which point they came back outside, stood me up, uncuffed me, apologized for the inconvenience, explained to me the situation (the "witness" swore she heard a womans voice), gave me a card with their sheriffs number should i have any more questions and kindly left me to video gaming nerddom.

now my point is this: when they came back down and ordered me to turn around and cuffed me, i complied because i knew why it was necessary. From their point of view, theyve received a domestic disturbance call of a lot of yelling and banging around and a womans desperate pleas for help (thats the story they got from the dumbshit "witness"). As officers of the law and keepers of the peace it is not only their duty but their obligation to fully investigate. So they arrive to the place, where the suspect comes outside, refuses consent (as is his right) so they move to the next manual bullet: get a sworn statement from witness that would make a no warrant search permissible, which, they did. Now at this point, for all they know there is a woman inside who could be battered and bruised, unconscious, or even dead, and given the context of the investigation, the suspect is a perceived threat. This makes their detainment of the suspect not only necessary to continue the investigation but fully justifiable not only for their safety, but for the suspects own safety and the safety of the neighbors.

now put yourself in the officer in this videos perspective. He's doin a routine stop: crooked license plate whatever, he's gonna give him a hand and fix it, write him a ticket, or just warn him about it so he could fix it at his earliest convenience. But as soon as the driver pulls over, he immediately gets out of his car and approaches the officer hand in pocket. this has now just become a stop that is anything but routine, even tho some of you would insist it is, and as such the officer escalates to protect not only himself, but the driver and anyone else that may be on the road or vicinity (although it appears to be quite isolated, which if thats the case would make for a more vulnerable situation for both the officer and the driver).

TL;DR: any attempt to make a martyr out of the driver and demonize the officer in this particular scenario is misguided at best and retarded at worst

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^Sarzy:
Umm... I know we're supposed to automatically be outraged in cases like this, but if I have the story right, the man was pointing an AR-15 at the cops as they came through the door. Google that -- it's a pretty serious looking gun. Were the police supposed to wait until he started shooting at them and only then fire back? They had the siren going before they came in, they yelled something before they broke the door down, so what else were they supposed to do (other than not be there at all)?

If the man was pointing a rifle at the swat/door, then the shooting is comprehensible. There is quite a difference between this and the downright manslaughter without justification in this video.
Where I live, we have the opposite problem: cops can barely defend themselves without the general public going ape-shit and instantly siding with the alleged culprits. In Geneva, a group of gangsters robbed an exchange bureau with automatic rifles, came out guns blazing at the cops during traffic hour (i.e. many civilians around...)
and now one of them is attacking the Geneva police in court, because he was shot although allegedly unarmed. (article en français)


That's only true if the cops had reason to be there in the first place. Which brings me to another problem, the issuance of search warrants without due diligence by judges. Proposed amendment to the 4th should be

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, on the penalty of perjury , and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. In the event that a search warrant is found to have been enacted wrongly and bodily harm is caused to the defendant, or anyone associated at the time and place of the warrants execution, the executing officers, all present at the time of execution, are to be be punished for whatever harm has come upon the defendant and or any associates. The minimum penalty for a wrongful death shall be a charge of manslaughter. Furthermore any property damages, including livestock, or household pets, shall also warrant appropriate restitution and punishment.

They lied about the shooting, they haven't said whether they found drugs or not. I'm inclined, as I always am, to not believe a word of what an officer says; let alone the organization they work for.

In short, full on criminal investigation into every, fucking, one of the bastards. The people deserve, no, are guaranteed the right to be safe in their persons, and properties.

Charlie Veitch, the founder of the peace activist group ‘The Love Police’, was pre-emptively arrested on Thursday the 28th of April 2011, around 1615h, on an allegation of a conspiracy to cause public nuisance. As the video evidence shows, Charlie was not read his rights, and no warrant was presented for his arrest or for the search of his living space.

He was held for 16 hours at Parkside Police Station in Cambridge. Outraged locals, students, and activists protested outside the station, and concerned citizens from around the world inundated the station with phone calls to voice their concern of this totalitarian police behaviour. Parkside police were obstructive to his lawyer, family, and partner, let alone friends and supporters, by not providing any information of his wellbeing or whereabouts.

At around 1000h on Friday the 29th of April 2011, Charlie was collected by the Metropolitan Police from Parkside and taken to an undisclosed police station in London for 8 hours. Efforts by his lawyer, family, and partner to locate him were made in vain – he had effectively been ‘disappeared’ into the police system. Charlie was denied his right to a phone call from London, again continuing the obstruction of his access to his lawyer, family, partner and supporters. He requested that the police telephone his partner to inform her of his whereabouts, which was promised but not performed. With his family in the dark as to his whereabouts, concern was considerably growing.

Charlie was eventually released on bail 23 hours and 45 minutes after his arrest at approximately 1600h on Friday 29th April from Edmonton Police Station, London – just within the 24 hour limit that a person can be lawfully arrested and detained without charge. - http://www.cveitch.org/

Good find there blank. Just for reference, I'm, putting the text of the amendment here.

Amendment 4 - Search and Seizure. Ratified 12/15/1791.

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.

And he is absolutely right. Searches conducted by the government at random, without cause/warrant are in direct violation of the constitution...wonder which amendment is next.

Idiots Cops are breaking the 4th Amendment. They are breaking the law. They are no better then the bad guys they are trying to weed out.

The FOURTH AMENDMENT SEARCH AND SEIZURE:

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.

>> ^littledragon_79:
Wow, the y/t poster is a paranoid moron. He should try reading the law as to how/where CBP are allowed to operate. And if he doesn't like it write his reps or run for office. Since the checkpoint is inland, he would be fine then with the local SO or State Police running it? Or maybe the FBI or military? And an illegal working for CBP? Nice try.
I know there's a lot of anti-establishment, the cops are always wrong, we live in a police state mentality here, but don't get too paranoid folks. The cops aren't always wrong, sometimes they need to use force (but F tasers), we don't live in Nazi Germany, and we should be vigilant in keeping government in check. But harassing these guys is like harassing a Walmart greeter because you don't like their policies. Dick move.
As for the whole camera thing, who cares if the guy has a camera. Do your job, and don't be a dick about it. Although, my instructors old us not to advertise that we were BP Agents and try not to have pics taken...since some cartels have bounties out for killing Agents.


You've not been inconvenienced by them have you? Their searches are haphazard, and they cause massive backups on the road for miles. They make a bad situation worse, and fuck that. You have the right to tape any fucking peace officer you wish. Paranoid or not. They should be afraid of the US citizen we should not be afraid of them. The moment he reached his hand into that car he violated the 4th ammendment.

Seeing as to how the US citizen did not have anyone there to save his ass I think he was quite in the right to do what he did. You reach your hand into my car without proper protocol you may come back with a stump. The video proves that the cop did not have Probable Cause to enter the vehicle ergo; he should be removed from duty as he is a danger to the public.

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.