Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Minority Report in real life?

  1. #1
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318

    Minority Report in real life?

    They were "fixing to" make meth?

    http://rt.com/usa/texas-warrants-fut...on-crimes-449/

    Interesting... Thoughts?
    Advocate freedom please

  2. #2
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    I'm not up to speed on that area of 4A law.

    Is this really new ground? Or, just the application of existing government disregard for the 4th Amendment to a new set of facts?

    I guess it will really boil down to whether a reliable informant supplying sufficient information rises to probable cause?

    On the other hand, I think there is case law about getting a warrant when there is time and you don't have any excuses like evidence being destroyed or moved in the meantime. So, why didn't the cops get the warrant? A little concerned their informant wouldn't stand up to scrutiny? Was a real magistrate working that afternoon, and the cops figured he/she might refuse the warrant application?

    Hmmmm. I wonder.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  3. #3
    Regular Member decklin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Pacific, WA
    Posts
    764
    Officer, Officer! I think my neighbor is a witch!
    "Loyalty above all else except honor. " -John Mahoney

    "A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have." -Gerald R. Ford

  4. #4
    Regular Member stealthyeliminator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,318
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post
    I'm not up to speed on that area of 4A law.

    Is this really new ground? Or, just the application of existing government disregard for the 4th Amendment to a new set of facts?

    I guess it will really boil down to whether a reliable informant supplying sufficient information rises to probable cause?

    On the other hand, I think there is case law about getting a warrant when there is time and you don't have any excuses like evidence being destroyed or moved in the meantime. So, why didn't the cops get the warrant? A little concerned their informant wouldn't stand up to scrutiny? Was a real magistrate working that afternoon, and the cops figured he/she might refuse the warrant application?

    Hmmmm. I wonder.
    Yeah, I don't know. I don't really understand what exactly was ruled on. To me it seems like they basically "allowed" the warrantless search, which to me seems totally separate (and a lot worse) than the whole "informant" aspect of the case... But, I don't know that much about it. I know I don't like it though.
    Advocate freedom please

  5. #5
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Who needs a writ of assistance, just enter.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  6. #6
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Who needs a writ of assistance, just enter.
    Great point! The king's agents at least had general warrants (Writs of Assistance). The gang in the OP didn't even have that.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-19-2013 at 10:17 AM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  7. #7
    Regular Member 77zach's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Marion County, FL
    Posts
    3,005
    I don't understand the implications of the ruling. I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred and not one of the state's many mala prohibita. If proper procedure wasn't followed, and the suspect did not actually do anything wrong, then the cop should be fired and possibly punished for a civil rights violation.
    “If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than the rest of mankind? ” -Bastiat

    I don't "need" to openly carry a handgun or own an "assault weapon" any more than Rosa Parks needed a seat on the bus.

  8. #8
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    I don't understand the implications of the ruling. I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred and not one of the state's many mala prohibita. If proper procedure wasn't followed, and the suspect did not actually do anything wrong, then the cop should be fired and possibly punished for a civil rights violation.
    "The point of the Fourth Amendment, which often is not grasped by zealous officers, is not that it denies law enforcement the support of the usual inferences which reasonable men draw from evidence. Its protection consists in requiring that those inferences be drawn by a neutral and detached magistrate instead of being judged by the officer engaged in the often competitive enterprise of ferreting out crime." Johnson v US 1948.

    I found it a few years ago at one of my favorite websites: http://www.fourthamendment.com/blog/

    There are a few angles on suppression of government evidence.

    From one angle, you could say the court gets to make its own determination whether its willing to go along with violations of the constitution. If a judge felt it was unfair to introduce evidence obtained in violation of the 4A, I can't really see compelling him to go along with the violation. In which his remedies might be a little limited. He could throw out the whole case. Or, he could refuse to allow the just evidence that violated the 4A.

    Personally, given the rate at which courts have been finding "loopholes" in the 4A, I don't think the latter is all that much of a concern. My suspicion would tend more towards government knowing full well the revolutionary spirit in America was fed heartily by suspicionless general warrants by the kings agents. The courts aren't willing to create a firestorm by eating away the whole 4A at once.

    But, the most important angle is "who is the correct target?" Supermoderator Mike pointed this out a few years ago. The correct target is not the judges who suppress evidence or let off crooks on "technicalities." The correct targets are the cops and prosecutors who didn't play by the rules. If a judge lets a genuine crook off on a techicality, that's what he's supposed to do. It was the police or prosecutor who violated 4A, due process, etc, who let that criminal off.

    Those "technicalities" are your rights. Your Fourth Amendment right. Your right against self-incrimination. Your due process rights.
    Last edited by Citizen; 12-19-2013 at 11:04 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  9. #9
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    Quote Originally Posted by 77zach View Post
    ...I never understood why evidence can be thrown out because it wasn't obtained properly, assuming a real crime occurred...
    It doesn't help justice in THAT EXACT CASE, but it must be so for the long term freedoms in this country.

    The only thing that sometimes stops cops from committing violations of these freedoms is not wanting to have the evidence ruled as inadmissible. They can play a game with prosecutors and premeditate getting evidence through an illegal search and then arguing that they would have eventually found it in a legal search later, even if just getting the one crucial piece that makes a difference ruled as admissible, while the rest is ruled as inadmissible.

    We need MORE damning evidence thrown out so as to curb this behavior even more so.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    It doesn't help justice in THAT EXACT CASE, but it must be so for the long term freedoms in this country.

    The only thing that sometimes stops cops from committing violations of these freedoms is not wanting to have the evidence ruled as inadmissible. They can play a game with prosecutors and premeditate getting evidence through an illegal search and then arguing that they would have eventually found it in a legal search later, even if just getting the one crucial piece that makes a difference ruled as admissible, while the rest is ruled as inadmissible.

    We need MORE damning evidence thrown out so as to curb this behavior even more so.
    Basically, we NEED more citizens, political leaders, residents, peace officers, prosecutors, and judges that strive based upon principles and personal integrity to NOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN ANY MANNER or allowing violations to occur instead of just crossing the boundary by just an inch because that is just a little violation!

    First edit--- added "Constitutional"
    second edit--- added "political leaders" to the list
    Last edited by JoeSparky; 12-20-2013 at 01:32 AM.
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Fairborn, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    13,063
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    It doesn't help justice in THAT EXACT CASE, but it must be so for the long term freedoms in this country.

    The only thing that sometimes stops cops from committing violations of these freedoms is not wanting to have the evidence ruled as inadmissible. They can play a game with prosecutors and premeditate getting evidence through an illegal search and then arguing that they would have eventually found it in a legal search later, even if just getting the one crucial piece that makes a difference ruled as admissible, while the rest is ruled as inadmissible.

    We need MORE damning evidence thrown out so as to curb this behavior even more so.
    Punish the offending LEO; don't reward the criminal!

  12. #12
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Punish those redcoats don't reward those tea smugglers.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  13. #13
    Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    usa
    Posts
    691
    There have been so many threads closed for "cop bashing". Who in the hell are the ones enFORCing the increasingly egregious laws?????


    EnFORCErs for The State choose their "job", defend it, promote it, etc.


    The State entities across this country whether Federal, state, or local are 99 times out of a hundred destroying Individual Constitutionally protected RIGHTS. They couldn't do that with out their enFORCErs.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by sudden valley gunner View Post
    Punish those redcoats don't reward those tea smugglers.


    Which brand of metaphor tonic are you taking? I want some.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Quote Originally Posted by Citizen View Post


    Which brand of metaphor tonic are you taking? I want some.
    Thank you.

    On the subject of tonics, I have been into making Moscow Mules the last few months.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •