The Real No-Knock Warrant Thread by canttakesky

It's worse than you know...

More about what happens when the 'heroes' knock down the doors :
http://www.lewrockwell.com/suprynowicz/suprynowicz66.html

Sadly , it goes on , and on , and on...

Ad nauseum...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2008 1:57 PM

Quote:
An all-white jury sentenced Cory Maye, who is black, to death for exercising his right to defend his locked home and family against violent invasion by an unknown intruder. The all-white jury took only a few hours to do so, at least one juror explaining he wanted to get home for supper.

THIS is how I define 'unwarranted'.
Yep- toss the Constitution. It's just a Goddamned piece of paper anyway.

Oh, and Finn- these are the little steps toward fascism I was referring to, BTW.

Lethal Weaponisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2008 4:37 PM

Not much to comment, as I am real busy and not really gonna bother explaining why, since most ya can pretty much figure out it on your own...

But one bit of something I felt the need to mention in spite of my opinion that the damn thing borders on insanity, not 100% sure *how* I feel about the damn thing yet, legalities aside...

Ok, some of you are aware that I have a hookup with a bunch of geek-types who are kinda like a private variant on DARPA, cell phone jammers, IR camera mungers, faraday shields, RFID proof wallets, jammer cards, Scramdrives, Taserproof windbreakers, all that sorta james bond shit that geek types love to giggle over.

Well, one of their latest gigs gives me the freakin willies, but it's mere *existance* even in concept, I sincerely hope scares the piss out of these jackbooted goons.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I present to you....
THE CLAYDOOR!
Beat it, smash it, take a chainsaw to it, hell, even burn it, no real worries...

But once you flip the arming switch on your way to bed, any substantive impact great enough to breach the doors core integrity will compress two small metal plates into each other, thus completing a circuit... and the result WILL clear your porch of unwanted guests in about 0.15 seconds, whether they're armored up or not.

Now, far as I am concerned the damn thing oughta STAY on the drawing board in concept only, it bothers me that anyone would even think of it, mind you.

But it's a natural impulse in response to the militarization and abusive attitudes of police as a whole who've mentally transformed the society they were intended to protect, into a bunch of "enemies" to be fought, and in my opinion, they have only themselves to blame.

You push folk, sooner or later, folk push back, and even the tiniest mouse will bare it's fangs and sink them in you given half a chance if you corner it and then threaten it enough.

I hope this thing scares the piss out of em, I really do, cause if it serves to check this behavior, then perhaps (hopefully) no one will take it into their head to actually BUILD one.

But to be honest, as far down the slippery slope as things have gone, have been *allowed* to go by damn fools who won't listen to reason and historical pattern, I have my doubts about any ability to check the slide now.

First they make so many laws no one can obey them all, and thus make us all criminals...

Then they declare "war" on "crime". (in short, us)

Well then, they'll just have to get used to the simple fact that the other side DOES eventually start shooting back when you make war on them.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Sunday, May 18, 2008 9:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

Ok, some of you are aware that I have a hookup with a bunch of geek-types who are kinda like a private variant on DARPA, cell phone jammers, IR camera mungers, faraday shields, RFID proof wallets, jammer cards, Scramdrives, Taserproof windbreakers, all that sorta james bond shit that geek types love to giggle over.

Gorramn . That settles it . I am , officially , a geek . A giggling geek .

Hope to see you at the roundup , Frem .

Let's hang on to the 'essential Liberty' 'til then...

This thread nauseates me...'cause I know the Truth...

Curious other giggling (sometimes not so much) , googling , geeks may want to research 'waco no-knock' , or , 'Peyton Strickland' , and you'll see what I mean 'bout being nauseated...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 3:01 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

THE CLAYDOOR!

O M G.
I suppose it was just a matter of time....

The Revolution has started without meisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:23 AM

Spare no mercy for the rats either, cause as mentioned in other threads, oppressive regimes require the cooperation of stoolies and collaborators to function in the manner they do.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/us/18crimestopper.html?_r=2&th&emc=t
h&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

I'd not have such an issue with it if not for the fact that our "justice" system has devolved to something so vile it borders on a drumhead court, and that rather than voluntary, this is an out and out bribe-informer system of the kind that spawns bullshit no-knock raids on innocent folk in the first place.

Having once been mistaken for a criminal on a local show while picking up some videos, tackled, abused, arrested and hassled for hours before it become clear I was NOT that guy - I am pretty snippy about this kind of thing, said video store went bankrupt before my suit against them came to court too, so my end of it was "Uhh.. sorry?".

Historically, collaborators always get short shrift, and there's a REASON for that, people.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:25 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
It's worse than you know...

More about what happens when the 'heroes' knock down the doors :

Sadly , it goes on , and on , and on...

And on and on...a small sampling from 2005 when 55 officers where killed in 53 seperate instances:

KANSAS
The 42-year-old sheriff of the Greenwood County Sheriff’s Office was shot and killed on January 19 while attempting to execute an arrest warrant. At 9:44 a.m. , the sheriff, along with two deputies, arrived at a single-family residence and found two individuals present, who indicated that the subject of the warrant was not at the house. The sheriff sought and received permission to search the residence. The two deputies secured the outside of the dwelling while the sheriff, who had 26 years of law enforcement experience, searched the inside. The sheriff called for the subject to come out. While the sheriff was standing near the staircase, the subject, who had hidden himself, reportedly emerged without warning, placed a .44 magnum revolver to the sheriff’s chest and fired twice. The deputies heard the shots, entered the residence, and dragged the victim sheriff from the house. They were unable to return fire as they removed the victim officer. The deputies directed the other two individuals in the residence to flee, leaving the 23-year-old male, who was on parole and under the influence of narcotics, alone in the residence. The victim sheriff was transported to a local hospital where he was pronounced dead. Several hours later, after unsuccessful attempts to negotiate with the alleged offender, a Kansas Highway Patrol Special Response Team forced entry into the residence. The offender fired at the troopers, who carried a ballistic shield, until the revolver and a .22-caliber semiautomatic handgun were empty. He fought while being arrested, but was eventually subdued and charged with Capital Murder.

LOUISIANA
On August 10, at 3:15 p.m. , three narcotics detectives from the Baton Rouge Police Department were executing a search warrant to investigate the property of an individual who was suspected of growing and distributing marijuana. After knocking on the door of the residence and not receiving a response, the detectives forced their way inside the house. They entered the first room without encountering anyone and then moved toward the doorway of the next room. Later investigation revealed that the suspect was apparently in the second room and was armed with a .45-caliber semiautomatic handgun. A man stepped into the doorway and began firing at the officers, all of whom were wearing body armor. One bullet struck one of the three detectives, a 31-year-old, in his ballistic vest. The detective, who had nearly 5 years of law enforcement experience, returned one shot, striking the assailant in the center torso area. The wounded assailant then shot the victim detective in the forehead, killing him. The man attempted a third shot at the detective, but missed him. The assailant turned his gun on the other two detectives, and during the exchange of gunfire, the 41-year-old detective, who had nearly 20 years of law enforcement service, was struck in his neck, and he fell to the floor. The third detective backed toward the front door and continued firing at the assailant, who shot the 35-year-old detective in the right leg just below the knee. That detective, who had 7 years of law enforcement experience, fired several rounds, but his last round failed to eject properly. However, one of the bullets passed through the wall and struck the assailant in the right portion of his torso as he turned to one side; another round struck him in the hand, and he dropped the gun. The 25-year-old male, who had a prior criminal record for violent crimes, surrendered; however, he died from his wounds shortly thereafter. At the time of this publication, the two wounded detectives had not yet returned to duty.

MICHIGAN
At 4:18 in the afternoon on May 9, a 44-year-old detective with the Battle Creek Police Department was shot and killed while investigating a homicide. The 19-year veteran of law enforcement, along with his partner, was following a lead regarding the murder of a taxicab driver. They were attempting to gain entrance to a second-floor apartment of a female whose name was found along with bloody clothes and a knife inside a gym bag that was located in a garbage bin near the scene of the homicide. When the two detectives did not get an answer at the door, the first detective stepped outside the front of the apartment building and attempted to peer through the window. When he failed to see anything, he returned to the front door of the apartment where the detectives heard movement inside the residence. The second detective stepped outside to the back of the building and observed a male on the screened balcony of the apartment. The second detective identified himself as the police and informed the man he wanted to speak with him. The man turned and went back into the apartment. The second detective was reentering the building when he heard shots. He went down the hallway and looked up the stairs to the apartment door’s landing. A man fired a 12-gauge pump-action shotgun at the second detective and wounded his ankle. The second detective returned fire, but the suspect escaped from the rear balcony of the residence. The wounded detective made his way to his partner, who was lying on the landing in front of the apartment door with gunshot wounds to the arms and hands and the front upper torso and chest. The shotgun was nearby and the detective’s service weapon was missing. The wounded detective performed CPR on his partner; the fallen detective was subsequently taken to an area medical facility where he was pronounced dead. The fleeing suspect allegedly carjacked several vehicles and led Dearborn Police on a high-speed chase before wrecking the stolen car and fleeing on foot. The suspect then forcibly took another vehicle and a brief chase with police culminated in his being apprehended by multiple agencies involved. The 21-year-old suspect, who was on parole, was in possession of the victim detective’s service weapon when he was apprehended. He was charged with Willful Killing of Law Enforcement Officer with Firearm, Aggravated Felonious Assault of Law Enforcement Officer, Felon in Possession of Firearm, and Use of Firearm in Commission of Felony.

MISSISSIPPI
Two officers with the Wiggins Police Department were shot and killed at 8 p.m. on November 27 while responding to a domestic disturbance call. Both officers, one a 23-year-old shift supervisor with 5 years of law enforcement experience, and the other a 48-year-old officer with 23 years of service, arrived at a mobile home and were met at the door by a woman who said her husband’s best friend had beaten her. The officers asked the alleged assailant to step outside. However, the 6-foot-4-inch man jumped both officers and wrestled them to the ground simultaneously. During the struggle, the suspect managed to disarm the 48-year-old officer and fired 5 shots from the .40-caliber semiautomatic service handgun. One of the shots struck the 48-year-old officer in the side of his chest, mortally wounding him. Two shots struck the 23-year-old officer: one bullet went into his thigh and the second struck him fatally in his back. The man fled the scene and drove to his home in another town where he later surrendered to law enforcement authorities. The 46-year-old man, who had a prior criminal record, was arrested and charged with 2 counts of First-Degree Murder.

TEXAS
On November 29 at 2 p.m. , a 39-year-old officer with the Fort Worth Police Department was shot while attempting to arrest an individual who was the alleged subject of a felony warrant. The 17-year veteran officer and two other officers arrived at a residence where they thought the subject was staying. A female acquaintance of the subject met the officers at the door and told them that the man for whom they were searching was not inside. She invited the officers into the dwelling and gave them permission to search the rooms. As the officers approached a bedroom and opened the door, a man inside the room fired at them with a 9 mm semiautomatic handgun. In the exchange of gunfire that followed, the assailant shot the victim officer in the front of his head, and he fell to the floor. The shooter fled the residence through a window and went into a nearby house where he took a hostage. A shootout between police and the assailant ensued. A SWAT team arrived, and the 39-year-old assailant, who had a history of violent crimes and drug abuse violations, released the hostage unharmed and surrendered to the SWAT officers without further incident. The man, a parolee who was under the influence of narcotics at the time of the incident, was arrested and charged with Capital Murder and Aggravated Kidnapping. The victim officer lingered for two days, but on December 1, succumbed to the gunshot wound.

The full list is located here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/killedsummaries.htm

I read them all, I urge you to do the same. Read their names. Look at how many of them died doing something safe...routine even.

I know a number of officers. Husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, jerks, great guys, good people all. They do a dirty job and they have every right to expect to survive it.

I note for the record that officer safety is a primary reason for no-knock warrants. It is not the only reason. For example, another reason is the preservation of evidence.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:44 AM

And for every one of those Heroic brethren, I can name twenty, nay.. FIFTY who have conducted themselves in a manner little better than the fucking Stasi.

And officer is not BETTER than me, his life is NOT worth more than mine, and they *VOLUNTEERED* to do a job that may cost his life, so don't you dare ask me to fucking cry over them when the risk they, of their own free will agreed to take, catches up with them - especially in light of how many innocent people they kill, and don't even bother to keep records of, and also don't even have the goddamn decency to send an honor party to hang their heads in shame over the coffin as a gesture of penance.

And don't think even for an INSTANT, that after volunteering to assume that risk, that they have any fucking RIGHT to shove it off on ME, who did NOT volunteer to assume that risk, just because they consider me a lesser being cause I don't wear a badge.

Fuck that, they ain't lords, we ain't peons, and it's about fucking time they were reminded of it.

Don't even pretend to shovel how "dangerous" police work is at me neither, we've already gutted that phony-ass myth, and it's no excuse whatever for rampant corruption and abuse in any case.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 4:46 AM

And THIS for your edification, as true now as it was then.

Nothing is so unworthy of a civilized nation as allowing itself to be "governed" without opposition by an
irresponsible clique that has yielded to base instinct. It is certain that today every honest German is
ashamed of his government. Who among us has any conception of the dimensions of shame that will
befall us and our children when one day the veil has fallen from our eyes and the most horrible of crimes -
crimes that infinitely outdistance every human measure - reach the light of day?

If the German people are already so corrupted and spiritually crushed that they do not raise a hand,
frivolously trusting in a questionable faith in lawful order in history; if they surrender man's highest principle,
that which raises him above all other God's creatures, his free will; if they abandon the will to take decisive
action and turn the wheel of history and thus subject it to their own rational decision; if they are so devoid
of all individuality, have already gone so far along the road toward turning into a spiritless and cowardly
mass - then, yes, they deserve their downfall.

Goethe speaks of the Germans as a tragic people, like the Jews and the Greeks, but today it would
appear rather that they are a spineless, will-less herd of hangers-on, who now - the marrow sucked out of
their bones, robbed of their center of stability - are waiting to be hounded to their destruction. So it seems
- but it is not so. Rather, by means of a gradual, treacherous, systematic abuse, the system has put every
man into a spiritual prison. Only now, finding himself lying in fetters, has he become aware of his fate.

Only a few recognized the threat of ruin, and the reward for their heroic warning was death. We will have
more to say about the fate of these persons. If everyone waits until the other man makes a start, the
messengers of avenging Nemesis will come steadily closer; then even the last victim will have been cast
senselessly into the maw of the insatiable demon.

Therefore every individual, conscious of his responsibility as a member of Christian and Western
civilization, must defend himself against the scourges of mankind, against fascism and any similar system
of totalitarianism. Offer passive resistance - resistance - wherever you may be, forestall the spread of this
atheistic war machine before it is too late, before the last cities, like Cologne, have been reduced to
rubble, and before the nation's last young man has given his blood on some battlefield for the hubris of a
sub-human. Do not forget that every people deserves the regime it is willing to endure.

From Friedrich Schiller's "The Lawgiving of Lycurgus and Solon":

Viewed in relation to its purposes, the law code of Lycurgus is a masterpiece of political science
and knowledge of human nature. He desired a powerful, unassailable state, firmly established on its
own principles. Political effectiveness and permanence were the goal towards which he strove, and
he attained this goal to the full extent possible under the circumstances. But if one compares the
purpose Lycurgus had in view with the purposes of mankind, then a deep abhorrence takes the
place of the approbation which we felt at first glance. Anything may be sacrificed to the good of the
state except that end for which the State serves as a means. The state is never an end in itself; it is
important only as a condition under which the purpose of mankind can be attained, and this purpose
is none other than the development of all of man's powers, his progress and improvement. If a state
prevents the development of the capacities which reside in man, if it interferes with the progress of
the human spirit, then it is reprehensible and injurious, no matter how excellently devised, how
perfect in its own way. Its very permanence in that case amounts more to a reproach than to a basis
for fame; it becomes a prolonged evil, and the longer it endures, the more harmful it is...

At the price of all moral feeling a political system was set up, and the resources of the state were
mobilized to that end. In Sparta there was no conjugal love, no mother love, no filial devotion, no
friendship; all men were citizens only, and all virtue was civic virtue.

A law of the state made it the duty of Spartans to be inhumane to their slaves; in these unhappy
victims of war humanity itself was insulted and mistreated. In the Spartan code of law the dangerous
principle was promulgated that men are to be looked upon as means and not as ends - and the
foundations of natural law and of morality were destroyed by that law...

What an admirable sight is afforded, by contrast, by the rough soldier Gaius Marcius in his camp
before Rome, when he renounced vengeance and victory because he could not endure to see a
mother's tears!...

The state [of Lycurgus] could endure only under the one condition: that the spirit of the people
remained quiescent. Hence it could be maintained only if it failed to achieve the highest, the sole
purpose of a state.

From Goethe's "The Awakening of Epimenides, Act II, Scene 4:

SPIRITS: Though he who has boldly risen from the abyss Through an iron will and cunning May
conquer half the world, Yet to the abyss he must return. Already a terrible fear has seized him; In vain
he will resist! And all who still stand with him Must perish in his fall

HOPE: Now I find my good men Are gathered in the night, To wait in silence, not to sleep. And the
glorious word of liberty They whisper and murmur, Till in unaccustomed strangeness, On the steps of
our temple Once again in delight they cry: Freedom! Freedom!

Please make as many copies of this leaflet as you can and distribute them.

And where did it come from ?
http://www.whiterosesociety.org/WRS_pamphlets_home.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Rose

Tell me the parallels aren't similar, go on and TRY.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 5:02 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
I note for the record that officer safety is a primary reason for no-knock warrants. It is not the only reason. For example, another reason is the preservation of evidence.

There are nearly always good "ends" for justifying these kinds of "means". The question is whether the means are constitutional, or whether we can support them as policy in any case.

Perhaps when we find ourselves in a position where achieving a given goal seems to require questionable means, we should begin to question the goal.

That's actually a question we don't ask enough, in my opinion. There are some goals that we might like to pursue that aren't well suited to a 'law and order' approach. We put our police, and our civil rights, in jeopardy when we ask them to pursue goals that should never be matters of law in the first place.

The drug war is one example, as well as the abortion issue. It's long been my opinion that abortion might well be considered a type of murder. But to prevent it would require an even greater injustice. (Obviously, that's still being debated, but in my opinion, declaring the bodies of all women to be public property is a greater injustice than the death of an unborn baby, though we'd hope to prevent both).

If you can't enforce a law without grossly violating individual rights it might be an indication that 'law' is the wrong way to approach the problem in the first place.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:33 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you can't enforce a law without grossly violating individual rights it might be an indication that 'law' is the wrong way to approach the problem in the first place.

The question of what violates a person's rights is subjective. For example, there are persons who post on this board who consider it their God given and Consitutionally protected right to drink as much as they want and then drive their car.

Legally the Court consider no-knock warrants to be legal and Constitutional.

Like all warrants there are strict guidelines that must be followed to allow the intrusion. So long as the guidelines are followed the warrant will be issued and executed.

Mistakes are made. It happens. But the solution is to train hard, have the right equipment, adapt new tactics, and have a process to redress wrongs.

Police have a number of tools they can use in any given situation. Guns, flashlights, cuffs, tasers, pepper spray, an asp, computers, a police cruiser, verbal judo, etc. Not everything is useful in every situation. You would not use a flashlight to shoot someone, you would not use verbal judo to effect a traffic stop, handcuffs can't give you a printout of a criminal record.

No-knock warrants are simply another tool, practical and useful in the right situation, but not useful in the least for others.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 7:52 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And officer is not BETTER than me

Hmmm...not to sure about that. I think that nearly every officer I know is probably better then you. You might stand a better chance making this argument in some other City.

Quote:

Don't even pretend to shovel how "dangerous" police work is at me neither, we've already gutted that phony-ass myth, and it's no excuse whatever for rampant corruption and abuse in any case.

Wow, your post is just SO much crap. I'm willing to bet you didn't read a single one of those stories of how those 55 officers died in 2005. Imagine a routine traffic stop, walking up, and taking a shotgun blast to the face just as your asking for license and registration.

Hmmm...how can I put this...I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain law enforcement to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom those officers provide and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post. (Noting for the record that many states, like Ohio, would require a carry permit if you carry unless on your own property.)

Not that your capable of standing that post...because, as we can all agree and I established earlier, they are, with few exceptions, BETTER, braver, and more capable then you. I suspect thats what eats at you. Thats why you are so quick to dismiss their sacrifice and laud their failures. Because by tearing down our finest is the only may you can measure up. I find your comments small (in an unsatisfed wife fashion). Mean spirited. Unproductive. Oh...and typical, unimaginative. Crazy talk.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:15 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
It's worse than you know...

More about what happens when the 'heroes' knock down the doors :

Sadly , it goes on , and on , and on...

And on and on...a small sampling from 2005 when SS officers where killed in 53 seperate instances...

The full list is located here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/killedsummaries.htm

I read them all, I urge you to do the same. Read their names. Look at how many of them died doing something safe...routine even.

I know a number of officers. Husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, jerks, great guys, good people all. They do a dirty job and they have every right to expect to survive it.

I note for the record that officer safety is a primary reason for no-knock warrants. It is not the only reason. For example, another reason is the preservation of evidence.

H

To any would-be 'hero' who'd show to offer F.I.B. 'files' in support of an unconstitutional practice , we award the Horiuchi Medal...

Also , just a quick couple of questions for our 'hero' :

1) Did you take an Oath (affirmation) of Office whereby you solemnly swore to Uphold , Support , and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America , against ALL ENEMIES , Foreign and Domestic ?

2) In compensation for the exercise of your Responsibilities in that Office , are you being paid in the Lawful Money of the United States of America ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 8:35 AM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
... small (in an unsatisfed wife fashion). Mean spirited. Unproductive. Oh...and typical, unimaginative. Crazy talk.

Isn't this a quote from your profile?

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:06 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Isn't this a quote from your profile?

Come on, it was kinda clever...

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:16 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
To any would-be 'hero' who'd show to offer F.I.B. 'files' in support of an unconstitutional practice , we award the Horiuchi Medal...

What "unconstitutional practice" are you talking about?

If your talking about no-knock warrants...they are Constitutional:

The common law principle that law enforcement officers must announce their presence and provide residents an opportunity to open the door is an ancient one.See Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U.S. 927, 931-932 (1995).

Finally, in Wilson, we were asked whether the rule was also a command of the Fourth Amendment. Tracing its origins in our English legal heritage, 514 U.S. at 931-936, we concluded that it was. See Hudson v. Michigan, (2006)

Wilson and cases following it have noted the many situations in which it is not necessary to knock and announce. It is not necessary when "circumstances presen[t] a threat of physical violence," or if there is "reason to believe that evidence would likely be destroyed if advance notice were given," id. at 936, or if knocking and announcing would be "futile," Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394 (1997).

We require only that police "have a reasonable suspicion . . . under the particular circumstances" that one of these grounds for failing to knock and announce exists, and we have acknowledged that "[t]his showing is not high." Ibid

How many seconds' wait are too few? Our "reasonable wait time" standard, see United States v. Banks, 540 U.S. 31, 41 (2003), is necessarily vague.

This issue has been examined and re-examined again and again by the Court and ruled on accordingly. Police are required to 'knock and announce'...there are exceptions.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 9:53 AM

First up , noticed that you didn't answer my interrogatives , numbers 1) and 2)...

'Reasonable wait time' has expired on you...

I announce 'We're coming in' , 'cause we have 'reasonable suspicion' that 'hero' is dishonest , and is going to flush the evidence...

Plus , our Republic is in danger , as are the Citizens and patriots therein , and you , having sustained threats to our lives , Liberty , and properties , are subject to our Warrant , and

Bang...Your door is down...Bang , bang ! BAD 'hero' , you are dead...

Good riddance , too !

See , not so nice , being you...Fortunately , none of our Officers were killed in the Execution of their Duties...and You .

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 12:48 PM

Once again Zero reminds us what he really is.

Quote:
I think that nearly every officer I know is probably better then you.

A cop is a person, and people lie, cheat and steal, it's a fact.
He isn't superior, or "better than" he's just a man doing a job, and I will judge him and his brethren on their overall performance of that duty.
That double-standard bullshit of treating them like some kind of petty lords is half the damn problem and has lead us down the path we're currently on, where "Five-O" is regarded by and treated as an enemy by the citizenry.

Quote:
You might stand a better chance making this argument in some other City.

Oh, you mean like one that has a goddamn Federal Task Force camped out on top of the police dept because they can't even pretend to act like anything but a fucking mafia ?
Or perhaps the one I came from initially, which has a police force SO corrupt they torched thier own internal affairs department to try to hide it in spite of the fact that whatever "discipline" they ever got was a mere paid vacation ?
I could detail the abuses of either one for a week nonstop and never run out of material and I think everyone present in this discussion damn well knows that, including you.

Quote:
Wow, your post is just SO much crap.

Spoken like a true agent of the State - explain then to me how and why it's treated like some kind of all-fired tragedy when a cop winds up taking a dirt nap, but when one of those cops murders a citizen by neglect or intent it's naught more than "Oops, Sorry bout that."
Explain why the Supreme Court felt the need to make an official decision that people in this day and age might have every cause and reason to flee from a police officer for their own safety even if they have committed no crime ?

Quote:
I'm willing to bet you didn't read a single one of those stories of how those 55 officers died in 2005.

And how many innocent people did they kill in 2005 - do they even keep records ?
Do you even know who Cheryl Llynn Noel is ?
Why should I care about then, when it's bloody fucking obvious they don't care about us mere citzens.

Quote:
Imagine a routine traffic stop, walking up, and taking a shotgun blast to the face just as your asking for license and registration.

Imagine a routine traffic stop (illegal, btw), watching them walk up, and taking a shotgun blast to the face instead of being asked for license and registration.
Or being threatened by what appears to be a pack of club goons, and upon attempt to exit the situation, having a hail of bullets fired at your car, like happened to Sean Bell.
Or being threatened and harrassed by the officer like Brent Darrow, who had the sense to record what is, regardless of your pathetic protestations, extremely common behavior by police.
Or simply gunned down from behind as you try to comply for reasons never explained, like Piezonni Johnny the pizza shop operator.

Quote:
I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain law enforcement to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom those officers provide and then questions the manner in which they provide it.

"Freedom" ?
That's an awful funny fucking word for it, when every goddamn thing from having a brew on my own porch, to not mowing my lawn as often as folk would like, to simply owning certain books is forbidden behavior under threat of violence by this fucking collective of goons.
REAL Freedom would be the freedom to do as I wish provided no harm comes to anyone else because of it - and they do NOT provide that freedom, in fact they exist to restrict it, or might I remind you that the BATFE exists only as a means and method to violate rights grounded in the US Constitution, a "lawful" agency directly intended and operating for the purpose of subverting, restricting, and eventually destroying, the highest law of the land.
Sure sounds like a mafia, as well as a criminal conspiracy, to me.

Quote:
Otherwise, I suggest that you pick up a weapon and stand a post.

Funny thing to say coming from the very person who would PROSECUTE me if I dared actually use my CCW to stop a crime in progress against myself or another person - I despise the callous attitude (the YOYO principle) that is required of CCW applicants simply due to the vilification of self-defense or defense of others in this country.
And for the record, when the police do actually act in the service and protection of the community, like during that big blackout we had up here, you will find me first in line backing them up - I was right there in the line with them helping distribute bottled water, you ninny, as well as on standby to repair any generator engines that failed on us.

Quote:
Not that your capable of standing that post...because, as we can all agree and I established earlier, they are, with few exceptions, BETTER, braver, and more capable then you.

Bullshit, they put their pants on one leg at a time, and are every bit as capable of abuse or wrongdoing as any other human being, in fact moreso because due to this asinine and entirely bogus perception they are rarely punished for it properly when they do.
When they are held to a higher standard of behavior, AND manage to actually keep to it, then and only then might I consider them of better moral character, but until that day it's just a bullshit myth that is in part responsible for the problems within their own system and serves to prevent it from ever being successfully addressed.

Quote:
I suspect thats what eats at you. Thats why you are so quick to dismiss their sacrifice and laud their failures.

Nope, it's because I want them to do their job, and do it with a minimum of waste, fraud and abuse - which they cannot seem to do, and their monopoly on that so-called service only gives them less incentive to improve it.
Of course, there's also the now burning question of whether their purpose is actually what is publicly admitted, or something... else.
Kind of like how those red-light cameras are in truth revenue generation, once the lies are stripped away and it's shown that not only do they reduce safety, but that cities started shorting yellows and created dangerous situations in order to increase it.
No, I am not at all sure that police have anything to do with protecting and serving the public, especially since they are not even legally liable or responsible to do even that - my suspicion is that they are there to protect and serve the status quo and the will of the policymakers, which is in this day and age quite different from that of the people.

As for the rest of your usual petty nastiness, that's just the usual defensive nastiness of someone who would be in the unemployment line looking for a real job if I had my way, instead of chugging at the tax trough while playing a fixed game with a loaded deck every day for an outrageous amount of money.

I drive cab asswipe, unlike you, I DO provide a public service, safely, cheaply, and one that is required because the Government you are so goddamn fond of cannot effectively operate a means of general mass transportation in spite of the truly staggering amount of tax money they steal from us to do it.

AND my job is five times more dangerous than police work, proven statistical fact as anyone who recalls the figures we dug up not so very long ago, but not nearly as dangerous as farming or commercial fishing.

For a prosecutor, I must say that as a rule you are pretty damned bad at presenting your case here - if you're no better on the courtroom floor, you'd never know what hit you if you came up against me and my lawyer.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, May 19, 2008 2:31 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
cities started shorting yellows and created dangerous situations in order to increase it.

I've noticed that too- strange that they'd want folks to either jam on their brakes for a screech, or speed up past the limit, eh? Forcing peeps to be perps is it?
Not exactly soldiers work...

Seems Hero's happy with just the 20% or so of the population that gets incredibly screwed by law enforcement/government, feeding off these peeps keeps the rest of America safe from attacks, I guess.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, May 20, 2008 4:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For a prosecutor, I must say that as a rule you are pretty damned bad at presenting your case here - if you're no better on the courtroom floor, you'd never know what hit you if you came up against me and my lawyer.

Trying a case against you is easy. My real goal is to identify your bias and get you removed from the jury so I can try other people. My short comments got enough bias diatribe from you to simply look at the Judge and he'd dismiss you from the Jury with the thanks of the Court. Then I could go about convicting the criminal type person sitting at the other table.

On the other hand, if you were on trial...I doubt you could keep your mouth shut. Considering that's your only chance at winning your case, I don't think I'd have a problem. Convicting Crazy-talkers is easy. I just wind them up and they convict themselves, usually pissing the Judge off in the process (which is a really bad idea considering what comes right after the Jury reads 'guilty' off their sheet).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 4:52 AM

You seem to have missed that "and my lawyer" part.

My lawyers job is to take the arguments and distill them into the language of the court, and he's very good at it, especially when handed the argument, a summary, and a stack of precedents.

Do you think I am fool enough to say word one in a court, when time after time I have provoked YOU into self-convicting here before the jury of the public ?

And then had the sheer unmitigated gall to point that out to you after the fact ?

I'd just sit there all anonymous in my nice suit hiding behind a poker face while he fillets you and serves you to the jury with a side of fries.

Double especially if you're the poor damn fool stuck with traffic and your asshole officer made the mistake of using a Genesis II or a Lidar gun on my car - and you KNOW why.

If I can fry you so easily here before a jury of the public at large, which is, as we both know a far different thing, he'd have no problem whatsoever with ripping you to bits on the courtroom floor.

That being said, I am not qualified for jury duty in the first damn place because of a pre-existing bias against law enforcement personnel and I would be the first to admit it, IF you ask that under Oath, being that I take such Oaths rather damned serious as a religious aspect of my character.

Now, if you're dumb enough to NOT ask me that one under Oath, you deserve what happens to your case at that point, cause that's just plain incompetence.

You may be the big fish in the little tiny puddle of your own jurisdiction, but in the great ocean of the world as a whole there's only one use for a fish your size....

Bait.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 5:56 AM

CITIZEN

My Lawyer's bigger than your lawyer.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:04 AM

I thought you bloody limeys still called em barristers, ehe ?

I shouldn't mock, really... since that legal system was one of the few good things we stole (and then screwed up totally) when we kicked the redcoats back over the waters.

(Off Topic musings/ramblings incoming)
Side note, since other americans seem to not have a clue of the difference between fries and chips...

Back when I was a kid, we actually *COULD* get decent fish and chips in this country, via a chain of events starting at Malin's of Bow, and ending in Columbus, Ohio - resulting in a small chain of restaurants known as Arthur Treacher's Fish N Chips, one of which was located in my hometown near mountain road.

And they were the real deal, mind you, up till one heartbreaking day when they suddenly just weren't there anymore.

Many many years later I spotted the never forgotten sign while passing through Ohio, and gave the Fremgirl prolly the fright of her life with a backwoods inspired wheel spinning bootleggers turn right smack in the middle of brice rd in order to get to the place.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bootleg_turn
(something which, mind you, I have NEVER heard the end of..)

Apparently they've recovered some from whatever financial crisis hit them and there's a bunch of locations in Ohio now, although thanks to the cod war they've gone to pollock instead of icelandic codfish, it's still about as close to authentic fish and chips as you'll get on this side of the water.

Of course, I would reccommend you have it "to-go" as it just doesn't seem right without a newcastle brown and they won't let you have that in the building, alas.

Still, well worth looking up if you're ever trapped in the armpit of america that is Ohio, it's one of their few redeeming qualities.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:43 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
To any would-be 'hero' who'd show to offer F.I.B. 'files' in support of an unconstitutional practice , we award the Horiuchi Medal...

What "unconstitutional practice" are you talking about?

H

ALL of them...All of them...

http://www.davekopel.com/Waco/Arts/rrprosec.htm

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 7:58 AM

CITIZEN

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I thought you bloody limeys still called em barristers, ehe ?

No, what you Doodle Dandies call Lawyers would be most like solicitors, Barristers tend not to have much contact with clients.

Quote:
I shouldn't mock, really... since that legal system was one of the few good things we stole (and then screwed up totally) when we kicked the redcoats back over the waters.

Justice and sanity?

Anyway I think you'll find the French did most of the kicking. Sure, it's not great having to admit being beaten by the French, but it's better than admitting needing the French to fight your wars for ya... Besides, we got our own back at Waterloo.

Quote:
Back when I was a kid, we actually *COULD* get decent fish and chips in this country, via a chain of events starting at Malin's of Bow, and ending in Columbus, Ohio - resulting in a small chain of restaurants known as Arthur Treacher's Fish N Chips, one of which was located in my hometown near mountain road.

I took the Misses to one of my local Fish and Chips the other week, it's apparently a well known one and has awards, anyway before getting it she said that you can get Fish and Chips in the US, afterwards she said "not like that".

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:26 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by citizen:
My Lawyer's bigger than your lawyer.

Have you measured or are these Turkish Baths stories?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 9:31 AM

FLETCH2

We have a 2 tier system. Solicitors handle most of the things you need a lawyer for that are not related to criminal cases. Things like drawing up wills, drafting legal documents and getting legal advice. Closest equivalent in the US case is someone who specialises in family law.

A Barrister represents you in court, he's kind of a specialist in criminal law. Often you have both your solicitor and your barrister in court but I believe a solicitor has no standing with the court, so he cant speak for you except as a witness.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 10:57 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

That's what he gets for not using a real gun.

Quote:
"Now if the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms comes to disarm you and they are bearing arms, resist them with arms. Go for a head shot; they're going to be wearing bulletproof vests. They've got a big target on there, ATF. Don't shoot at that, because they've got a vest on underneath that. Head shots, head shots. Kill the sons of bitches. If the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms insists upon a firefight, give them a firefight. Just remember, they're wearing flak jackets and you're better off shooting for the head. I was talking about a situation in which law enforced agents comes smashing into a house, doesn't say who they are, and their guns are out, they're shooting, and they're in the wrong place. This has happened time and time again. The ATF has gone in and gotten the wrong guy in the wrong place. The law is that if somebody is shooting at you, using deadly force, the mere fact that they are a law enforcement officer, if they are in the wrong, does not mean you are obliged to allow yourself to be killed so your kinfolk can have a wrongful death action. You are legally entitled to defend yourself and I was speaking of exactly those kind of situations. If you're going to do that, you should know that they're wearing body armor so you should use a head shot. Now all I'm doing is stating the law, but all the nuances in there got left out when the story got repeated."
-G Gordon Battle Liddy, attorney at law, FBI agent, US Army commander, Viacom radio host, Fox News anal ist, Hollywood actor, convicted felon Watergate burgler for CREEP in Tricky Dick Nixon White House, sentenced to 20 years in prison then commuted by President Zbignew Brezenski (a/k/a Barack Obama), er, Jimmy Carter
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Gordon_Liddy

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every Security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand?"
-Dr Alexander Solzhenitsyn PhD, Nobel Prize winner

"How can I get the Captain to shoot a cop in the face, and make it right? That extra moment of sadism - that's the thing that says it's okay, buddy, you're not up to spec, you're going down!"
-Joss the Boss, Firefly DVD, censored Episode 1 "Serenity"

Ditto.

The Summer Glau Chronicles: Free downloads
http://www.fox.com/fod/player.htm?show=tscc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wendi_Deng

"As far as Chinese goes, I resented it."
-Adam Tudyk, The Making of Firefly

Mal shoots cop in the face. Does that seem right to you?
Firefly Music Video: Tangerine dream - Confrontation, Thief soundtrack
www.megavideo.com/?v=JVT35GR8
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 11:16 AM

PIRATENEWS

John Lee, conspiracy therapist at Hollywood award-winner History Channel-mocked SNL-spoofed PirateNew.org wooHOO!!!!!!

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
It's worse than you know...

More about what happens when the 'heroes' knock down the doors :

Sadly , it goes on , and on , and on...

And on and on...a small sampling from 2005 when SS officers where killed in 53 seperate instances...

The full list is located here:
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/killed/2005/killedsummaries.htm

I read them all, I urge you to do the same. Read their names. Look at how many of them died doing something safe...routine even.

I know a number of officers. Husbands, wives, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, jerks, great guys, good people all. They do a dirty job and they have every right to expect to survive it.

I note for the record that officer safety is a primary reason for no-knock warrants. It is not the only reason. For example, another reason is the preservation of evidence.

H

To any would-be 'hero' who'd show to offer F.I.B. 'files' in support of an unconstitutional practice , we award the Horiuchi Medal...

Also , just a quick couple of questions for our 'hero' :

1) Did you take an Oath (affirmation) of Office whereby you solemnly swore to Uphold , Support , and Defend the Constitution of the United States of America , against ALL ENEMIES , Foreign and Domestic ?

2) In compensation for the exercise of your Responsibilities in that Office , are you being paid in the Lawful Money of the United States of America ?

I'm calling cops either:

1. Constitution Enforcement Officers

2. Criminals On Police Steroids

"Law Enforcement Officer" is an oxymoron, since most laws are in conflict with the US Constitution and its Bill of Rights, which renders those "laws" void from their inception.

All traffic cops are career criminals, as defined by The Law. They must be dealt with accordingly, if USA or any other nation is to survive. Just like cancer must be amputated to prevent death of the patient.

Quote:
"Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion -- to go where and when one pleases -- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is not a mere privilege which may be permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights, he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct."
-II Am.Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect.329, p.1135
www.piratenews.org/how-to-win-in-dragon-court.html

"You can't stop the signal!"
-Mr Universe, Pirate TV

FIREFLY SERENITY PILOT MUSIC VIDEO V2
Tangerine Dream - Thief Soundtrack: Confrontation
https://video.indymedia.org/en/2007/02/716.shtml
http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=8cd2bd0379340120e7a6ed00f2a53ee5
.1044556
www.myspace.com/piratenewsctv

DRIVE BY MIND CONTROL: FREE TV EPISODES ONLINE
www.myspace.com/driveonfox

Does that seem right to you?
www.scifi.com/onair/

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Wednesday, May 21, 2008 6:26 PM

I disagree with Mr. Liddy.

In a chaotic environment while half awake and in poor lighting conditions, the headshot is too iffy.

Use a shotgun with a wide choke and single O buck, go for the legs, all bunched up in the doorway and front hallway like that, sure as hell you'll get at least one, and a good knockdown will spill the rest like bowling pins, slowing them down and throwing off their fire.

Then reload with slugs, preferably Winchester Super X discarding sabot rounds, and aim for anything in the pile resembling coordinated movement.

Perhaps not as clean and graceful as the headshot, but effective all the same.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
ALL of them...All of them...

Thanks for narrowing it down.

Since the topic of the thread is 'no knock warrants' and the cases I cited say they are Constitutional under certain circumstances (which is true of all searches) you must have been talking about other practices unrelated to the topic. I would suggest you start a topic to talk about the other practices, since this one is pretty much already taken.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 3:39 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In a chaotic environment while half awake and in poor lighting conditions, the headshot is too iffy.

Use a shotgun with a wide choke and single O buck, go for the legs, all bunched up in the doorway and front hallway like that, sure as hell you'll get at least one, and a good knockdown will spill the rest like bowling pins, slowing them down and throwing off their fire.

Then reload with slugs, preferably Winchester Super X discarding sabot rounds, and aim for anything in the pile resembling coordinated movement.

Perhaps not as clean and graceful as the headshot, but effective all the same.

Its an attitude like that that makes 'no knock warrants' Consitutionally acceptable.

"Gee your Honor, he said he was gonna take a shotgun to folks coming through the door..."

"Well...best not to give him any warning. I'll sign the warrant."

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 4:50 AM

If they wanna serve a warrant on my place, they can damn well knock on the door in broad daylight like rational human beings.

Which they'd do, this is a teensy little podunk town and most of em have had yard equipment or their kids scooters repaired by me, not to mention working together during the big blackout, so it's not like we're strangers to each other and they're well aware that I happen to be a live and let live kinda guy right up till someone offers threat to me.

Knock on my door, hand me the warrant, lemme read it, and as long as none of your folk are allergic to cats, ain't gonna be a problem - but kick in that door like a pack of home invaders at 3am and you'll eat a hail of lead.

Your justification doesn't hold up, the fact that someone will defend their home against a violent assault in no way justifies that assault, and both that vilification of self defense, and the practice of making armed assaults on peoples homes in the middle of the night just gets people killed, cops and citizens, on top of which the double standard with which these deaths are treated is in fact profoundly disgusting to any rational person, but likely outside of your awareness since reason and sanity are anethma to your whole profession.

Your argument is as idiotic as a criminal arguing that he was really going to scratch up the guys car with his keys, but because he might have gotten angry and retaliated, just shot him instead.

And in case you didn't notice, the more the cops treat the citizens as an enemy to be fought, the more the citizens treat the cops likewise, I've seen it happen - one reason the BCPD won't respond with less than four cars in certain neighborhoods is because of the very real probability that the locals will take them out in retaliation for years of corruption and abuse if they did not have heavy odds on their side.

And that is their own fault as well, to use the rightful outrage and fury of folk mistreated by a police department as an excuse to further mistreat them is a bad road to go down, and ends in a form of social chaos that gives even an Anarchist like me the twitchies.

Had you damn fools any SENSE, you'd move the focus back to Public Service from Law Enforcement, train these guys a hell of a lot better at de-escalation and legal triage, and let them do the damn job instead of demanding that they enforce every little nitpick law there ever was while being mostly immune to em themselves.

A police officer should be an ASSET to a community, not a fucking THREAT to it.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 8:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
ALL of them...All of them...

Thanks for narrowing it down.

Since the topic of the thread is 'no knock warrants' and the cases I cited say they are Constitutional under certain circumstances (which is true of all searches) you must have been talking about other practices unrelated to the topic.

...I would suggest you start a topic to talk about the other practices, since this one is pretty much already taken.

H

As always , you're just long on opinions , and woefully short on facts...

No wonder you feel it necessary to ask me to rein in my speech...

http://www.givemeliberty.org/revolution/Misc/PostStar-Ed-May-7-2008.pd
f

Frem and the other articulate folk continually mop the floor with your ass , and you keep sitting up , and asking for more...

You're the sort of St00pid that keeps showing up to a gunfight , and never bringing so much as a knife...

The only thing you've ever been able to do consistently well is demonstrate your personal logic failures , and keep missing the real points when people bring the same to your attention...

Your partial citations with only-rare attributions don't do anything to bolster your 'intelegence'...

One day soon , we'll find that our 'hero' and 'persecutor' really just flips burgers at the Burger King...

'Cause that's the only place where anybody is inclined to buy his 'whoppers'...

You don't answer the questions about your Oath and your Responsibility for one simple reason :

Because you Can't.

Mal: I don't murder children...

Fed: I do. When I have to...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:02 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
For a prosecutor, I must say that as a rule you are pretty damned bad at presenting your case here - if you're no better on the courtroom floor, you'd never know what hit you if you came up against me and my lawyer.

...Trying a case against you is easy. My real goal is to identify your bias and get you removed from the jury so I can try other people. H

You really DON'T know how it's all supposed to work , do you ?

Okay , you're going to TRY a case against Frem , but to do that , you're going to get him removed from the JURY ?

See , it is worse than we know...It always is...

Our 'hero' must have quite the rich fantasy life...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:08 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
In a chaotic environment while half awake and in poor lighting conditions, the headshot is too iffy.

Use a shotgun with a wide choke and single O buck, go for the legs, all bunched up in the doorway and front hallway like that, sure as hell you'll get at least one, and a good knockdown will spill the rest like bowling pins, slowing them down and throwing off their fire.

Then reload with slugs, preferably Winchester Super X discarding sabot rounds, and aim for anything in the pile resembling coordinated movement.

Perhaps not as clean and graceful as the headshot, but effective all the same.

Its an attitude like that that makes 'no knock warrants' Consitutionally acceptable.

"Gee your Honor, he said he was gonna take a shotgun to folks coming through the door..."

"Well...best not to give him any warning. I'll sign the warrant."

H

...All we ever get from our 'hero' is more
Dogma from someone who's plainly never bothered to actually READ the Constitution...

See , it is TRUE what Zoe said :

Zoe :" You know what the definition of a 'hero' is ?

Someone who gets other people killed...You can look it up later..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:

One day soon , we'll find that our 'hero' and 'persecutor' really just flips burgers at the Burger King...

'Cause that's the only place where anybody is inclined to buy his 'whoppers'...

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 9:40 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:

...I'd just sit there all anonymous in my nice suit hiding behind a poker face while he fillets you and serves you to the jury with a side of fries.

Double especially if you're the poor damn fool stuck with traffic and your asshole officer made the mistake of using a Genesis II or a Lidar gun on my car - and you KNOW why.

If I can fry you so easily here before a jury of the public at large, which is, as we both know a far different thing, he'd have no problem whatsoever with ripping you to bits on the courtroom floor.

You may be the big fish in the little tiny puddle of your own jurisdiction, but in the great ocean of the world as a whole there's only one use for a fish your size....

Bait.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Hey Frem , how does it keep happening that when 'hero' is forced to 'EAT our BRIEFS' , he's the only one who ever gets

Em-BARE-ASSED ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 1:18 PM

KWICKO

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Mistakes are made. It happens. But the solution is to train hard, have the right equipment, adapt new tactics, and have a process to redress wrongs.

Okay, mistakes are made. If that mistake is mistaking me for a drug lord and kicking in my door at 3am, then I am also allowed a "freebie" mistake when I put 16 rounds into the first person through the door. Hey, it happens. The solution isn't to "train hard" - the solution is to hire at least one fucking cop on every team who can READ THE GODDAMN STREET NUMBERS so they get the right house in the first place.

Mistakes DO happen, but if we're to forgive the cops when they screw up, they have to offer us the same. And if someone's coming through my door in the middle of the night, they better announce themselves real loud, and real quick, because they WILL be met with a hail of gunfire otherwise.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 5:24 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I disagree with Mr. Liddy.

In a chaotic environment while half awake and in poor lighting conditions, the headshot is too iffy.

Use a shotgun with a wide choke and single O buck, go for the legs, all bunched up in the doorway and front hallway like that, sure as hell you'll get at least one, and a good knockdown will spill the rest like bowling pins, slowing them down and throwing off their fire.

Then reload with slugs, preferably Winchester Super X discarding sabot rounds, and aim for anything in the pile resembling coordinated movement.

-F

Forget about the pause to reload...Just load your scatter with at least 3 rounds of buck , then the 3 slugs...

The right idea , though...Only do the reload when there's nothing else goin' on...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
If you can't enforce a law without grossly violating individual rights it might be an indication that 'law' is the wrong way to approach the problem in the first place.

The question of what violates a person's rights is subjective...

H

That is a notion known as 'moral relativism'.

Fortunately , for Free People , the Constitution rejects that relativism , in favor of more enduring ideas like , ' natural and inalienable Rights ' , and , ' the Consent of the governed '...

The only Just Powers of government are derived from the consent of the governed...I do not Consent to your subjectivity...

I am not a 'subject'...Certainly not a subject of yours , nor the subject of any Construct of your moral relativism...

My Rights are not a 'blanket' provided by any of your 'law' officers...Keep your little 'blankie' to your self...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, May 22, 2008 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Hero:
Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And officer is not BETTER than me

Hmmm...not to sure about that. I think that nearly every officer I know is probably better then you. You might stand a better chance making this argument in some other City.
Quote:

Don't even pretend to shovel how "dangerous" police work is at me neither, we've already gutted that phony-ass myth, and it's no excuse whatever for rampant corruption and abuse in any case.

Hmmm...how can I put this...I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain law enforcement to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom those officers provide and then questions the manner in which they provide it. I would rather you just said "thank you," and went on your way.

H

Yeah , that was the attitude of the Nazi rank-and-file , the SchutzStaffel , and the collaborators...They all wished for the oppressed to just say 'thank you' , and go on their way...

We say , " No Thanks ! , YOU just go back under that rock from which you crawled..."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 23, 2008 4:28 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by out2theblack:
...Trying a case against you is easy. My real goal is to identify your bias and get you removed from the jury so I can try other people. H

You really DON'T know how it's all supposed to work , do you ?

Okay , you're going to TRY a case against Frem , but to do that , you're going to get him removed from the JURY ?

Sorry, I must have talked over your head.

Trying a case against him would be very easy for the reasons I noted.

The real danger in a person like him is not when he's the Defendant...its when he's called for Jury Duty for some other Defedant. With a pool that can have 30 or more people and limited time for Voir Dire it is often very difficult to find and eliminate someone like that from the pool, especially because in a few cases they try to conceal their bias just to later disrupt the process.

I am on the look out for persons with any kind of bias (including in my favor...cause I want them on board), for example, I had a DUI case with a young lady on the Jury that had a prior DUI from my City AND the Officers both ending up calling her and asking her out afterwards. I note for the record...she was hot. Lots of red flags but on further examination she turned out to be thoughtful and intelligent and held no grudge, a keeper...unfortunately we didn't date afterwards. The guy next to her with no history did hate cops and I almost missed him...but something was off so I bounced him on gut feeling alone (found out later he'd had a dispute with on of my City's cops and carried a long grudge)...didn't date him either (I note for the record I do not approve dating Jurors...a friend of mine ended up dating a Jury Girl...didn't end well).

I have always found Voir Dire difficult for this reason and its not something they can teach in Lawschool. Mostly its based on first impressions, stereotypes, and gut feelings. But I've picked a number of Juries now and only ever lost one case, so I must be doing something right (I hope to figure out what that is...)

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 23, 2008 4:34 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!isall

Was kinda funny. I laughed a little, then remembered how much money I make, then went to court and screwed with somebody just because I could, then laughed some more.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 23, 2008 4:48 AM

Well, not saying your jurisdiction does it - but many pre-stack that jury deck against the defendant.

Some counties up here are in deep shit over "random" selection software that was anything but - and how the HELL do you even FIND an all-white jury pool in freakin Redmond ?

Not that I give a damn about such stupid things, but I didn't think there were enough honkies in that city to make a baseball team, let alone a jury pool.

I think that particular factor should just be discarded from the jury selection process anyhows, in fact, discard everything but zipcode.

Of course, that'd make pre-stacking the jury pool a little harder, and we can't have that, can we ?

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 23, 2008 5:11 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Of course, that'd make pre-stacking the jury pool a little harder, and we can't have that, can we ?

Our juries are sent down by the County. The County has this big pool selected from voter records (another reason not to vote). We need a Jury County gets a call from the Judge's Bailiff and they call the Jury pool and say to come here and not to the County Courthouse.

I get the names about an hour before trial...along with address and employment. I've known only one person called for my juries, but sometimes odd things happen. Our former Chief Prosecutor got called to sit on a felony jury, walks in and sees its a Defendant he knows because he authorized the felony trial and then Prosecuted him at the Preliminary Hearing. At that point he quietly informed the Judge he needed to be excused. He said the look on the Defendant's face was priceless.

Here its luck of the draw. Had a DUI case where five members of the pool had family who had been the victim of drunk drivers (two started crying while being questioned by the Defense Atty during Voire Dire). Next DUI case I had five members who had prior DUI convictions from my City (lost that one, my only loss).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, May 23, 2008 6:01 PM