Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Where have we heard this from before?

  1. #1
    Regular Member IcrewUH60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Verona, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    481

    Where have we heard this from before?

    from http://www.barefootshooter.com/395/b...e-in-texas.php

    It matters not that all of this conduct could be construed as innocent of itself; for purposes of a reasonable-suspicion analysis, it is enough that the totality of the circumstances, viewed objectively and in the aggregate, suggests the realistic possibility of a criminal motive, however amorphous, that was about to be acted upon. Under these circumstances, the Fourth Amendment permits the police to make a brief stop to investigate, if only by their presence to avert an inchoate offense. [emphasis added]
    could there be a common, national denominator for these kind of findings in our court systems? Are we ALL up against something bigger than the ignorance of our own local PD's?
    "In a court trial half the lawyers are wrong." - Captain Nemo

    "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizens." - Albert Einstein

    gunowners.org ~ lp.org ~ downsizedc.org ~ oathkeepers.org ~ campaignforliberty.com/usa/WI/ ~ goooh.com

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    North Central Wisconsin, ,
    Posts
    768
    Quote Originally Posted by IcrewUH60 View Post
    could there be a common, national denominator for these kind of findings in our court systems? Are we ALL up against something bigger than the ignorance of our own local PD's?
    For your convenience:

    totality of the circumstances test - Law Definition
    A test originally formulated to evaluate whether a defendantís constitutional rights were violated in the eliciting of a confession. It concentrates on looking at all the circumstances surrounding the alleged violation rather than only one or two aspects, as had been the case before. It had been used as a measure of whether a defendantís privilege against self incrimination had been violated, but since the advent of the Miranda rule (1966), that use has become obsolete. It is now used to determine whether a defendant consented to a warrantless search, and whether probable cause exists for the issuing of a search warrant. (Webster's New World Law Dictionary)
    And
    TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES
    The law operates with two major substantive standards:

    "Bright line" and "Totality of the circumstances"

    A totality of the circumstances standard suggests that there is no single deciding factor, that one must consider all the facts, the context, and conclude from the whole picture whether there is probable cause, or whether an alleged detention is really a detention, or whether a citizen acted under color of law. The primary guide for this kind of substantive rule is the fact patterns from cases in which the courts have found that the criteria were met.

    A bright line rule, on the other hand, gives specific guidelines. Any unwanted, non-accidental touching of the person of another constitutes a battery. That's it. Police may not enter property on which they do not have a right to be without a warrant or other special legal justification. They enter. Violation. The line is clear cut.

    Why not make all our laws bright line and avoid the problems of trying to decide these complex contextual issues? Because human experience is infinitely varied, and we cannot write adequate laws to cover all possible circumstances. Also, we need our police to have some discretion in enforcing the law. If they were completely hemmed in by bright line rules, they would be unable to act when we need them. But in giving them discretion, we risk abuse of discretion. That is an eternal problem of humankind. As the crime rate rises, we give police more discretion. As police excesses grow in a time of relative low crime, we take away discretion and give more bright line rules.

    Probable cause and reasonable cause are judged by a totality of the circumstances standard. That means you have to take all the facts into consideration and weigh them. There is no single definition of what gives probable or reasonable cause. Why? So police will have the necessary flexibility to meet the myriad different situations that occur. ( http://www.csudh.edu/dearhabermas/totcirc.htm)

  3. #3
    Regular Member IcrewUH60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Verona, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by phred View Post
    For your convenience:


    And
    I learn something everyday on here. Thanks Phred!
    "In a court trial half the lawyers are wrong." - Captain Nemo

    "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizens." - Albert Einstein

    gunowners.org ~ lp.org ~ downsizedc.org ~ oathkeepers.org ~ campaignforliberty.com/usa/WI/ ~ goooh.com

  4. #4
    Regular Member TyGuy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    775
    Everyone take a shot. It's the Madison PD drinking game.

  5. #5
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,169

    Absolutely

    Quote Originally Posted by IcrewUH60 View Post
    from http://www.barefootshooter.com/395/b...e-in-texas.php
    could there be a common, national denominator for these kind of findings in our court systems? Are we ALL up against something bigger than the ignorance of our own local PD's?
    It's called the United States Supreme Court. These tests, rules, standards, what-have-you come from various cases the court has decided. Now if you would put down the "Big Golden Book of Law for Everyone" and consult an attorney when needed, the acid indigestion you feel might go away. Remember the apjonas maxim - "If knowing the law merely required the reading of a statute, we could hire work-study students as judges."

    Your local PD is not ignorant (i.e. uneducated) about these rules. They simply are very good at manipulating them.

  6. #6
    Regular Member IcrewUH60's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Verona, Wisconsin, USA
    Posts
    481
    Quote Originally Posted by apjonas View Post
    It's called the United States Supreme Court. These tests, rules, standards, what-have-you come from various cases the court has decided. Now if you would put down the "Big Golden Book of Law for Everyone" and consult an attorney when needed, the acid indigestion you feel might go away. Remember the apjonas maxim - "If knowing the law merely required the reading of a statute, we could hire work-study students as judges."

    Your local PD is not ignorant (i.e. uneducated) about these rules. They simply are very good at manipulating them.
    great point... so it seems then it's the lawyers and judges behind it all... seeing that their the only ones who can interpret law. Speaking of lawyers when needed, know any good ones?

    Remember the apjonas maxim - "If knowing the law merely required the reading of a statute, we could hire work-study students as judges."
    or, OMG how about twelve random, regular, "uneducated" people off the street to determine guilt or innocence and in some states, life or death in a trial...

    look, I'm no artist but I can draw my own conclusions. Just as I'm no architect I can form my own opinions. I don't need The Big Golden Book of Law for Everyone. In fact, I didn't even know it existed and to imply that's what I read is, well disingenuous.

    Thanks for your reply, but Phred explained it best, and has done so without assuming I had acid indigestion. I've said it before, and I'll repeat it here too. I learn something everyday I visit this forum. I also find that I learn more (and by more, I mean accurate/truthful/examples) when I participate in the discussion. Not being a lawyer is not going to keep me from doing this.
    "In a court trial half the lawyers are wrong." - Captain Nemo

    "[There is] a duty in refusing to cooperate in any undertaking that violates the Constitutional rights of the individual. This holds in particular for all inquisitions that are concerned with the private life and the political affiliations of the citizens." - Albert Einstein

    gunowners.org ~ lp.org ~ downsizedc.org ~ oathkeepers.org ~ campaignforliberty.com/usa/WI/ ~ goooh.com

Posting Permissions

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