Re: Lots of things
Re: masks
Citizens have a right to anonymity and freedom of travel. They have no compulsion to identify themselves. The police are supposed to identify themselves. So to those who talk about the masked protesters you should realize that they will be harassed and arrasted if identified on any footage shot by news cameras (not just what is shown to viewers, all footage shot) while the police hide their identities in an illegal fashion.

Re: anarchists "started it"
The police have to be held accountable for their own actions as all individuals should. Whatever 20 people out of an entire city of people do, they cannot control what the police do to other innocent people. Futhermore I don't see why the police would want to make themselves seem so weak so as to suggest they were being controlled by just a few people and that is why they were attacking innocent citizens.

Re: the stairs
The police should get in trouble for attacking people at their private residence. No warrants issued as far as I know.

Re: "Unlawful Assembly"
They kept saying that on their PA system. I thought the constitution specifically prohibits making assembly illegal! That should be the law most easily identifiable as unconstitutional.

Re: Torture
The use of teargas, rubber bullets, painfully loud sound, etc. should be illegal as they are forms of torture. Causing pain in order to get someone to do as you want is torture.

Re: Nonviolence
This can only work if people protest whenever and wherever they want. Nonviolent protest has to be disruptive in some way in order to provoke a response that is one-sided. I freaking love Ghandhi and the non-violence movements. They are great example as to why we don't need armed military or police anymore. A mass of peaceful and nice people always beats raw brutality.

Re: revolution
All these kind of oppressive actions make me very sad for my child who may have to endure a full-on revolt. I don't know why the fat cats who control the government want to die at the hands of the coming revolution but they sure don't seem to be holding back any provocation. I myself get sad when I have to kill a fly but I am sure most are not so gentle. As the gap between the haves and the have-nots grows and as it becomes more and more clear that the rich control the government I don't see how people can react any other way. It is just a matter of time. Unless you can take the money out of government and heal millions of wounds already inflicted by one side.

-Karl

>> ^quantumushroom:
Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.
dft, I stand by my words. As always. They are based on observance of the hysterical tone of the bulk of these responses as well as past observations of sifters' knee-jerk hateful reactions to lawful authority, reactions programmed by government school (and kollij) indoctrination. The moral-relativist "Establishment" has done its evil work.
The "private property" excuse is a lame one and not applicable. It appears to be the front yard area, visible from the road. Any criminal activity in plain sight in the front yard requires no warrant, nor does an officer being threatened with harm.
Had the cop shot a sleeping dog or sitting dog, I'd also like to see him strung up by his balls.
But that's not what happened here.


It does apply. Because these laws prohibit any one who is unwelcome from being on the property. They have to have written and expressed consent from the owner of the property. The officer did not have a need to be on the property, and being lost does not constitute as a need, because they have radios in their cars. It appears to be the front yard area, so that means its Ok for a cop to go on the property? If there were crime on the property then her surveillance would have caught the criminals comming on to the property, which they did in this case it was the police.

Just because the law is lame does not mean that it is not applicable in this case. It is applicable and that would be how I would advocate for the owner.

Finally if you read most of my comments you will find that I state that this case hinges on what she had posted on her borders, and on the property.

Nice baseless assumption, qm. Begging the question is the technical word for this particular fallacy.

dft, I stand by my words. As always. They are based on observance of the hysterical tone of the bulk of these responses as well as past observations of sifters' knee-jerk hateful reactions to lawful authority, reactions programmed by government school (and kollij) indoctrination. The moral-relativist "Establishment" has done its evil work.

The "private property" excuse is a lame one and not applicable. It appears to be the front yard area, visible from the road. Any criminal activity in plain sight in the front yard requires no warrant, nor does an officer being threatened with harm.

Had the cop shot a sleeping dog or sitting dog, I'd also like to see him strung up by his balls.

But that's not what happened here.

Downvote because NOTHING ILLEGAL HAPPENED HERE.

"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."

Nothing was searched or seized here, and no warrants were issued. The video starts off with text saying a woman was arrested for not paying a $75 fine on the spot, with NO references, and later the police say she was arrested for driving without a valid license. To that dumbshit white kid: The fourth amendment has NOTHING to do with being able to go where ever you want "without fear that the cops will mess with you"


UUUUHHHHGGGGGGHHHHH!!!!

In a socialist environment; this man would not have had the chance to do this.

This would have been better if Bush wasn't able to point out the government's constitutional right:

"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."

Hey, guess what? We all became suspects on a long day in September. Read it carefully. Lawyers are really good at working around the loopholes.

And don't forget. These are the same people that felt the need to repeal the sale of alcohol, the need to implicitly state that blacks and women have the right to vote and an amendment guaranteeing they are paid for there jobs... Just not too much pay if you're a rookie.

Not only did they violate the 2nd amendment, they also violated the fourth amendment:

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.

Quoting Justice Jackson in dissent of Brinegar v. United States

"The Fourth Amendment states:

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.

"These, I protest, are not mere second-class rights, but belong in the catalog of indispensable freedoms. Among deprivations of rights, none is so effective in cowing a population, crushing the spirit of the individual, and putting terror in every heart. Uncontrolled search and seizure is one of the first and most effective weapons in the arsenal of every arbitrary government. And one need only briefly to have dwelt and worked among a people possessed of many admirable qualities but deprived of these rights to know that the human personality deteriorates and dignity and self-reliance disappear where homes, persons and possessions are subject at any hour to unheralded search and seizure by the police."

"But the right to be secure against searches and seizures is one of the most difficult to protect. Since the officers are themselves the chief invaders, there is no enforcement outside of court."

"Only occasional and more flagrant abuses come to the attention of the courts, and then only those where the search and seizure yields incriminating evidence and the defendant is at least sufficiently compromised to be indicted. If the officers raid a home, an office, or stop and search an automobile but find nothing incriminating, this invasion of the personal liberty of the innocent too often finds no practical redress. There may be, and I am convinced that there are, many unlawful searches of homes and automobiles of innocent people which turn up nothing incriminating, in which no arrest is made, about which courts do nothing, and about which we never hear."

Yeah this was picking a fight for the sake of picking a fight. I know a lot of people on here love fighting the cops but he is in the wrong here. So what American authorities or better yet no authorities in the world have any right to know if the people they are allowing to cross the borders into their countries are citizens or not? This video is horse shit. Easy answer i think is if she said "if you dont answer my question then yes i am detaining you" now whether she can or not with reasonable cause but no warrant, which i think is perfectly acceptable on the border to a country, remains to be seen. I think anyone acting like that opens the door for searching the vehicle because they are being belligerent, uncooperative, and sending up tons of red flags of hiding something.

"The surveillance of citizens is the one point that disturbs me most as it affects many more Americans than secret prisons. I would have liked to see how Kasich explains how good this is, and also legal. Another post-9/11 power grab that the public still would not know about if it hadn't been leaked to the press. ATT currently filters all their internet traffic and lets the NSA spy on it with no warrants or oversight!! How is this legal?

The interviewer's bias is readily apparent, the best way she could have responded was succinctly answer his questions with facts, no long speeches. They call this a news channel?"


Thanks for the news none of us would have ever known about. Wait no, it's common sense, not the hardest thing to figure out. OMG it's teh spies on teh internets...Son, just admit she prolly does meth, cause she's so strung out and boring to listen to, no one can follow what she's trying to say. Maybe she didn't respond with facts because facts disprove her wack theory. Maybe she knew what Fox News is, and had no business expecting reasonable people to listen to her meth-induced fantasies. You have been served.

I'm reading this book now, and I thought it was a shame she focused so much on trying to sell the book overall instead of answering the guy's questions.
Secret Prisons? We got none, right?

Remember those CIA rendition flights? They take you wherever in the world they want to torture you. No judge, no jury. Secret until somebody leaks it to the press. They even tried to kidnap a guy in Italy but their gov't found out. At least with the Gulags, everyone knew about them.

I find especially idiotic the question of what to do with these enemy combatants if we can't keep them in Guantanamo forever. Hey, I know, let's have a TRIAL where the gov't shows their evidence and lets the accused defend themselves against the charges. It's likely some people who have been rotting away in Guantanamo for 4 years haven't even been told why they are being held. Imagine living like that because some neighbor who hated you told the visiting US Army that you were a Taliban, and whoops, off you go. Does this situation more closely resemble a democracy or a fascist dictatorship, you tell me?

When she finally gets around to mentioning how the UK and Spain dealt with terrorists(following the law, regular trial), he just interrupts and laughs at her, then poses the question again as if she wasn't answering it. An inattentive viewer would just think she was going off on a tangent and didn't answer the question, being evasive because she can't answer directly.

The surveillance of citizens is the one point that disturbs me most as it affects many more Americans than secret prisons. I would have liked to see how Kasich explains how good this is, and also legal. Another post-9/11 power grab that the public still would not know about if it hadn't been leaked to the press. ATT currently filters all their internet traffic and lets the NSA spy on it with no warrants or oversight!! How is this legal?

The interviewer's bias is readily apparent, the best way she could have responded was succinctly answer his questions with facts, no long speeches. They call this a news channel?

Heh - i love the idiots that post on there with no idea of what the law really says.

The 4th Amend doesn't apply.

If someone opened the door, (...)

your arguement barely holds up IF that happened, but we don't know...

look again at the law...

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.

you still need a warrant for probable cause. it's what enables you to procure a warrant.

--

It's called "probable cause"....it gives the police great lee-way into what they can and can't do. For instance, if there were a crime being committed inside a private residence such as a murder or a rape or some other such crime, the police do NOT have to wait for a search warrant to enter.

See: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/knock-and-announce-rule.html
Knock and announce rule
Definition - Noun
: a rule of criminal procedure requiring that police announce their authority and purpose before entering a premises in execution of a search or arrest warrant unless special circumstances (as risk of harm to the police) warrant unannounced or forcible entry

See also: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/exigent-circumstances.html
Exigent circumstances
Definition - Noun
: circumstances that are of such urgency as to justify a warrantless entry, search, or seizure by police when a warrant would ordinarily be required

See also: http://research.lawyers.com/glossary/no-knock-search-warrant.html
No-knock search warrant
Definition
: a search warrant allowing law enforcement officers to enter premises without prior announcement in order to prevent destruction of evidence (as illegal drugs) or harm to the officers

underage drinking and/or noise ordinance issues hardly qualify for the above no-knock-warrant scenario.
if someone let him in though, their bad.

It's called "probable cause"....it gives the police great lee-way into what they can and can't do. For instance, if there were a crime being committed inside a private residence such as a murder or a rape or some other such crime, the police do NOT have to wait for a search warrant to enter.

If the cop suspected there was underage drinking going on or other illegal activities, he really didn't need a search warrant to enter.

The 4th amendment says this:

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.

Bottom line, the cop may or may not have had probable cause....but it doesn't really matter. If an arrest were to be made, THEN it would be determined in court whither he had probable cause or not. If he didn't, the charges and such can be dropped. But the whole point is to hassle you until you stop what you're doing. Where are you going to go if the cop walks in? Call the cops? They will all say they had probable cause and back up their officer...then tell you that no one was arrested so why are they complaining blah blah blah. Really, what are you going to do if a cop walks in without a warrant? Warn him he better leave? Or what?

It's all fine and good to say that you know your rights, but your rights mean zero if all they want to do is hassle you. Good luck trying to prove it.

i wish we'd seen the part where he busts the door down or whatever. i also wish we'd seen the owner of the house and his reactions.

---

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.

via: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/constitution/html/amdt4.html

---

interesting read: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0112-05.htm

there's also tons of this happening, where the judge rules that had the search been conducted lawfully, the evidence against them would have been found anyway. in my opinion, this is crap because they're still going around the "knock and announce" rule, and the ability of the homeowner to say "no, i do not wish you to come into my house/apartment." in that instance, the evidence would NOT been obtained, unless of course it's in plain sight, which allows the officer to obtain a warrant under probable cause.

Not suprising. Remember Alberto Gonzolas' description of the Genevea Conventions as "quaint"?

Here's the 4th Amendment for reference:

Amendment IV

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.

This is the same group that can parse the 2nd admendment's "Right to bear arms" and somehow ignore the whole part about it being predated on the need for a "well-regulated militia". If every gun owner were required to be in a well-regulated militia (state militia, National Guard, military reserve) we'd have far fewer accidental gun deaths.