DAMN,
Police State?
[FRAME]http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p02s02-usju.html[/FRAME]
Police State?
[FRAME]http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0616/p02s02-usju.html[/FRAME]
The 4th Amendment is GONE!!!
- Thread starter Makeherhappy
- Start date
T
The Latchkey Kid
Guest
are you fucking serious?
Greed said:
There are certain variables of a police state that are currently in place. But, this is a HUGE step closer. It's like a rook trapping a King on the end line.
T
The Latchkey Kid
Guest
actually it's common for the civils rights of the public to be reduced during times of war
The Latchkey Kid said:
And that's the scary part about it, this war has no end in sight.
No it is not. The fact that a search warrant predicates the search is what guarantees the 4th amendment. The way it is executed can be changed. Just to let you know how much of a police state the US is not (at least when it comes to this issue), think back to the case Tupac caught in Atlanta when he bucked a cop during a traffic accident. He was found not guilty because the officer did not identify himself when he brandished his weapon, therefore Tupac was held to be defending himself against an armed assailant.Makeherhappy said:
There are MANY signs this is a police state of sorts, but this is not one of them, and many of the signs have been begged for by the ilk of many on this board.
What was begged for?
Yes this is a police state and it always has been, from the beginning this govt was established to protect rich white men. Also in a democracy people turn their rights over to the govt usually because of bribes like pork projects or demogoguary on social issues like race, sex, class. As we speak Congress is proposing a law that makes it easier for businesses to get our personal info, this at a time when identity theft is a major problem, they do it because the rights of the rich out weighs the rights of the poor they couldn't do it if people didn't put pro business candidates in office. The Supreme Court wouldn't be what it is now if duly elected politicians didn't put them there with the blessings of the people.
Fuckallyall said:
So coming through the door without knocking and a warrant, and seizing everything deemed, "good for the case" is not an UNREASONABLE SEARCH?
I remember the Tupac shooting very vividly. I was in Atlanta in the area at the time. He was not sitting in his home and they came through the front door. That incident wasn't a good comparison to the judgement of the Supreme Court.
We are a Police State, just not full stage.
Who's begging?
I have to agree with sentiments that the no-knock rule is not a good policy. I tend to believe that the more latitude police are given, the more they tend to take. Giving the police No Knock authority will tend to lead to more oppressive practices. Its just not in the police's psyche to protect individual freedoms as they tend to see it as whatever it takes to do their preceived job, its okay.MakerHappy said:
On the other hand, as Fuckallyall said, its no-knock "With A Warrant" in hand. So, fundamentally, the 4th Amendment is still served, just without the common decency of having to knock first, unless there is some emergency which requires immediacy.
QueEx
QueEx said:
i was in kind of a rush so I could not get out all I wanted to say on the subject.
The no-knock rule is not good policy, but not because it violates the 4th Amendment. I think it is not a good policy because it may lead to more needlessly violent confrontations between citizens and police. If they don't knock and come barging in unannounced, it's reasonable for the resident to assume that the intruders may be there to do them harm. And, whether you are a criminal or not, you have a right to defend youreself. And it's already been held on several occasions that if a cop does not identify his/her self as being one, they have none of the protections that law enforcement usually have in armed encounters.
Also, I think it will make cops more trigger happy.
Dolemite said:
Yep. The decision to fire a weapon is usually a split second one. And like I said in the above post, it's reasonable to assume that an unannounced visitor kicking in your door may be there to do you harm.
I disagree that it is different at all. The threat in this case is an armed assailant. No matter what location they accost you, they are accosting you and pose a reasonable threat to your person. If they do not identify themselves as law enforcement, why should they be treated any different from any other armed assailant ? It's just logic.Makeherhappy said:
And who's begging? All of the folks on this board who has said that "the government" needs to do "something" about something. That mindset has led to the expansion of government powers into areas that the constitution (quite wisely) said that the government should not be in. And the government is great at mission creep. They want to lower highway deaths, they end up using night vision goggles to see if you are wearing your seatbelt. You want them to "help" poor people, they end up using more money on administration than cutting checks. It's ridiculous.
The State's mission is to protect rich white men so it is a police state by design. People have rights as long as it doesn't interfere with the status quo. When people get too much freedom or situations develop that threaten the status quo rights are taken back by the govt. We have no rights that can't be taken by an act of Congress or through a Supreme Court decision, our rights are just an illusion usually granted to us as a response to a popular movement or as a way to keep us quiet.
^^^^^^
Similar threads
