Two very similar incidents and SCOTUS errodes liberty yet again

END_THE_FED said:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5vzCmURh7o

Click to expand...

SouthernBoy said:

I wrote a response to this vile ruling on another firearms site this morning.


"This is a bad ruling since it opens the door to all manner of "I thought [believed] that Mr. Jones was in violation of the law" statements by police. It effectively gets them off the hook for bogus stops, and even arrests, since it lowers the bar for probable cause and even RAS. The onus and responsibility should be on the police to both know the law and if in doubt, to verify what is says before detaining a citizen any further.

A very bad precedent has been set with this."

Click to expand...

Logan 5 said:

If a cop pulls you over and wants to search, you can always say "I don't f'ing think so!"
I can.
I have.
And I will again.

If someone is hauling something illegal and that makes them nervous enough that they consent to a search, then I suppose it sux to be them. They shouldn't have been hauling the illegal stuff to begin with.

Click to expand...

Logan 5 said:

They shouldn't have been hauling the illegal stuff to begin with.

Click to expand...

marshaul said:

Nonsense. Ignoring arbitrary and immoral prohibitions is as American as apple pie.

A big part of the purpose of the 4th amendment is precisely to make it difficult to arbitrarily prohibit contraband (don't forget several of the Founders were smugglers). So, what, we should throw that away in favor of the "right" to "consent" to being thrown in jail for non-crime?

And you still believe anybody "consents" to being thrown in jail for a non-crime? That's a fiction, and one it isn't worth conceding to tyrants.

Grow up.

Click to expand...

marshaul said:

Nonsense. Ignoring arbitrary and immoral prohibitions is as American as apple pie.

A big part of the purpose of the 4th amendment is precisely to make it difficult to arbitrarily prohibit contraband (don't forget several of the Founders were smugglers). So, what, we should throw that away in favor of the "right" to "consent" to being thrown in jail for non-crime?

And you still believe anybody "consents" to being thrown in jail for a non-crime? That's a fiction, and one it isn't worth conceding to tyrants.

Grow up.

Click to expand...

SovereigntyOrDeath said:

Well put.

A cop who does crap like this, and who lies to folks in order to get color of law consent should be fired. It is an abuse of power and should not be tolerated.

The case should have been dismissed.

Can anyone tell me who or what gave SCOTUS the authority to interpret the Constitution or erode our rights?

I suspect they have been overstepping their bounds for 200 years!

Click to expand...

marshaul said:

I've argued in the past that nobody ever meaningfully "consents" to a search when they know they have contraband present. I haven't encountered anything to change my view.

Cops should not be going around asking for consent to search. If they have sufficient reason to search (a warrant or genuine exigency), they don't need permission. If they receive permission to search, that permission is prompted by either A: innocence, in which case the search is a waste of time, or B: implicit coercion, in which case the search is invalid.

I promise you that if I was ever on a jury I would treat evidence derived as the result of a "consensual" search as fruit of the poisoned tree, regardless of what the corrupt court might instruct. (I might make an exception for a body in the trunk; maybe the guy was guilt-ridden and about to confess.)

Click to expand...

Primus said:

Agreed. Crack should be handed out at grade school. Can't get them to stay awake? Take a hit... put pipes in vending machines and have dealers between periods.

Click to expand...

sudden valley gunner said:

+1 My signature line. Its sort of akin to statutory rape. Taking advantage of the fear or ignorance for the exercise of power.

Click to expand...