Las Vegas, NV police violate 3rd 4th & 14th amendments

[OC for ME]

If a violation of the 3A is held then a court will formally classify a LEA as soldiers aka the military.

Ya never know what could happen these days in a court of law.

Look to the SCOTUS, Obama argued simultaneously that ObamaCare was not a tax and that ObamaCare was a tax, the individual mandate anyway. And five judges simply flipped a coin and it landed on tax, so ObamaCare is a tax and thus the individual mandate is constitutional. The Kelo decision, the taking of private property by the state for private use constitutional.

Posse Comitatus Act is not relevant to this thread. Henderson PD is not the Army or Air Force.....obviously.

Claiming a violation of their 3A is the point of my post.

Will the cops claim that the cops are in a time of war or that the 3A does not apply to cops. I suspect the 3A violation claim will be dismissed. Any lawyer that would include a 3A violation claim or permit it to be included in the suit needs to reread the 3A.

The 3A is very clear. Cops are not soldiers. Attire and accoutrements do not a soldier make. I predict that those cops will get off very easy.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Question....Do you still believe the police are not civilians if so then how can you say the 3rd doesn't apply.

At the time of the colonist there were no police force, the Brits used the redcoats as their police and for policing actions/subjagation.........yes there is a big correlation to what we see now in the modern unconstitutional proactive policing.

And we throw in that right down to our local small municipalities police are getting founded and are considered "first responders" for the federal government.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/civilian



Please stop playing word games. Non-military is one way to use the word. In that use, police are civilians. When speaking of police and non-police, non-police are civilians. Get over that reality. Moving on from that particular silly diversion.

The Third Amendment:



The Third Amendment was written because King George was forcing colonists to house, feed, and otherwise care for the soldiers he was using to make war upon them. It is specifically referring to soldiers and to their being quartered in people's homes. It does not address police commandeering homes for operations.

Make no mistake, I do not condone such a taking as the titular incident. It is just not necessary that we use the 3A to argue against it. That makes us look fringe. It is a violation of the 4A, and that is all that matters.

Again, if someone comes up with a court case that held that police commandeering a house for an operation was covered by the 3A, post it.

No. They are clearly violating the 4th and not the 3rd. The 4th is a general protection of one's privacy and property from governmental intrusion and, of course, applies in this case. The 3rd is a specific protection against a specific governmental intrusion that did not occur in this case. The 3rd does not apply.

Again, arguing that it does makes us look fringe. Arguing that the action was a violation of the 4th is the only one that is necessary. So why argue something that does not apply, thereby weakening the argument???

Did I argue it did? Matter of fact I said in referring to the 3rd...." this case may not rise to that level"...

I am discussing the principles of the 3rd and not talking about this specific incident.

I don't shy from extreme or fringe thinking or expressions those are highly subjective terms often thrust upon those who are not conforming to the current status quo....Like Samuel Adams being called a traitor for dare suggesting they owed no allegiance to a king, how fringe!

Think that eye95 and SVG are saying the same thing when it comes down to brass tacks = the 3rd does not apply.

The rest would seem to be semantics with a touch of personal.

I was specifically asked, "[H]ow can you say the 3rd doesn't apply?" That is a clear request for support for my position that it does not apply and an implication of disagreement with that position.

If I have gotten personal at all in that particular back-and-forth, do your job and deal with it officially. Otherwise all you are doing is trying to stir up trouble, the antithesis of what you are supposed to be doing here.

Moving on from your distraction and back to the topic at hand.

Here is the flow of the conversation.

I do say it's flimsy to say that 3rd applies in this specific instance as grapeshot has pointed out.

I never meant anything to be personal just address eyes position that the 3rd can never apply to police. As Eye himself seems to agree with my point in this sentence "The Third Amendment was written because King George was forcing colonists to house, feed, and otherwise care for the soldiers he was using to make war upon them" , the modern day police fit this description very nicely.

When I look at the 3rd, I ask my self what is the principle behind it, why did they write it? So no I didn't ask if the 3rd applies to this instance, only address and would like to discuss whether or not it applies to modern day police system that seem to have much of the same duties as the British redcoats. We were British then the redcoats were here as government agents, Britain didn't make war upon us until we rebelled.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

Ya never know what could happen these days in a court of law.

Look to the SCOTUS, Obama argued simultaneously that ObamaCare was not a tax and that ObamaCare was a tax, the individual mandate anyway. And five judges simply flipped a coin and it landed on tax, so ObamaCare is a tax and thus the individual mandate is constitutional. The Kelo decision, the taking of private property by the state for private use constitutional.

Very true, 9 politically connected lawyers.

The 3A is very clear. Cops are not soldiers. Attire and accoutrements do not a soldier make. I predict that those cops will get off very easy.

I fear your prediction is right.
Attire and accoutrements don't a soldier make.........actions and functions perhaps.....

 

[johnfenter]

Additionally...

This. Is. Insane.

Police force their way in to _2_ houses (happening to belong to a couple & their son), remove & arrest the occupants (for obstruction), all to have a base of operations for a DV situation at a nearby house.

The occupants repeatedly told police they did not want to participate and did not consent to officers being there.
I look forward to hearing that these poor people have won a large civil rights suit.





http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/03/59061.htm

It has occurred to me, that since the police actually occupied the homes for a distinct period of time, while the owners were in custody and not present, that there is also an element of the 5th Amendment here, a "taking", which should also be addressed...

 

[eye95]

That sentence does not fit what happened in this case at all. The police are not soldiers. They were not quartered.

However, the police actions were egregious violations of the 4A.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.
<O>

 

[Grapeshot]

Think that eye95 and SVG are saying the same thing when it comes down to brass tacks = the 3rd does not apply.

The rest would seem to be semantics with a touch of personal.

--snip--
If I have gotten personal at all in that particular back-and-forth, do your job and deal with it officially. Otherwise all you are doing is trying to stir up trouble, the antithesis of what you are supposed to be doing here.

Moving on from your distraction and back to the topic at hand.

Strange that you make an issue of my smoothing things over and using a gentle hand.....then accuse me of stirring up trouble.

"The rest would seem to be semantics with a touch of personal." = the rest (of the poster)s say the same thing differently (semantics) with a touch of the personal (interjecting THEIR take -not just repeating yours.)

Never used the word personal in association with insult or similar. No need to take needless offense, none was intended.

My "distraction" is very much on topic.

 

[davidmcbeth]

I point to myself as a member of a group of people commonly referred to as the human race.

Our rights are waiting for us before we are born. The problem with exercising our rights is that just about everyone is scared of the consequences when the state has unlawfully infringed upon those rights.

It is a sad state of affairs when we infringe upon our own rights out of a reasonable fear of retribution by the state and their agents.

Most folks are woosies ... "go with the flow" .. lest I cannot have my big mac tonight...

I used to like talking w/ WW II vets .... ya moan about something (like not having enough $$ to buy a good car) and they'll tell ya about sitting in a B-17 with a**holes trying to kill 'em .. and they didn't complain (that's what they said ~ ya know they complained their butts off, lol)

 

[eye95]

Strange that you make an issue of my smoothing things over and using a gentle hand.....then accuse me of stirring up trouble.

"The rest would seem to be semantics with a touch of personal." = the rest (of the poster)s say the same thing differently (semantics) with a touch of the personal (interjecting THEIR take -not just repeating yours.)

Never used the word personal in association with insult or similar. No need to take needless offense, none was intended.

My "distraction" is very much on topic.

We both used the word "personal" in exactly the same way, so please step down from your high horse.

You are a moderator. I am officially asking you NOT to handle me with what you call "a gentle hand." When dealing with my behavior, either it is acceptable under OCDO rules or it is not. If it is, your use of a gentle hand, by virtue of your position, gives that action an official imprimatur, officially dealing with nothing wrong. That is, in itself wrong. If I do break the rules, I don't expect a gentle hand. I expect you to do your job in an official, specific, and pointed manner. If I feel you overstep, I will handle it officially with John and Mike, as I have done before.

Too often, you mix your roles as a member and as a moderator here to the detriment of the other members. Please stop. At least as it relates to me. Please either address me in your role as a moderator or strictly in your role as a member. I will not accept your mixing of those roles.

Moving on.

 

[Grapeshot]

We both used the word "personal" in exactly the same way, so please step down from your high horse.

You are a moderator. I am officially asking you NOT to handle me with what you call "a gentle hand." When dealing with my behavior, either it is acceptable under OCDO rules or it is not. If it is, your use of a gentle hand, by virtue of your position, gives that action an official imprimatur, officially dealing with nothing wrong. That is, in itself wrong. If I do break the rules, I don't expect a gentle hand. I expect you to do your job in an official, specific, and pointed manner. If I feel you overstep, I will handle it officially with John and Mike, as I have done before.

Too often, you mix your roles as a member and as a moderator here to the detriment of the other members. Please stop. At least as it relates to me. Please either address me in your role as a moderator or strictly in your role as a member. I will not accept your mixing of those roles.

Moving on.

:lol:

 

[papa bear]

I know that my opinion and a 1.50 won't even buy you a cup of coffee. but here goes.

i think we are getting hung up on the word "soldier", like i said in my opinion, the 3rd A can be applied to any government employee. anytime you have mandatory government official taking possession of your home then it falls to due process. they are never allowed to occupy your home without due process. weather it be a search or an occupation

 

[eye95]

:lol:

A totally inappropriate response from an official of this site to an official complaint.

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I know that my opinion and a 1.50 won't even buy you a cup of coffee. but here goes.

i think we are getting hung up on the word "soldier", like i said in my opinion, the 3rd A can be applied to any government employee. anytime you have mandatory government official taking possession of your home then it falls to due process. they are never allowed to occupy your home without due process. weather it be a search or an occupation

Exactly what I am saying. We must look at the principles, it's called the BOR, so what rights were being violated by these "soldiers" and are they being violated now ( not referring to this case just in general).

 

[davidmcbeth]

We both used the word "personal" in exactly the same way, so please step down from your high horse.

You are a moderator. I am officially asking you NOT to handle me with what you call "a gentle hand." When dealing with my behavior, either it is acceptable under OCDO rules or it is not. If it is, your use of a gentle hand, by virtue of your position, gives that action an official imprimatur, officially dealing with nothing wrong. That is, in itself wrong. If I do break the rules, I don't expect a gentle hand. I expect you to do your job in an official, specific, and pointed manner. If I feel you overstep, I will handle it officially with John and Mike, as I have done before.

Too often, you mix your roles as a member and as a moderator here to the detriment of the other members. Please stop. At least as it relates to me. Please either address me in your role as a moderator or strictly in your role as a member. I will not accept your mixing of those roles.

Moving on.

Well, as long as you made it OFFICIAL ..... and look everyone, eye likes to be treated with a "rough hand"...hey-oh !


************************************************************************************************

Any government official who squats in your house is violating the 3rd ... don't get hung up on the word "soldier" .. the meaning of the amendment is plain to the reader. Otherwise, the gov't would just "trade" places with gov't employees -- telling them (non-soldiers) to stay at your house when the soldier stays at the guberment employees homes.

While the 3rd may nor may not be incorporated may be determined by this case...

Incorporation is BS legal mumbo jumbo if you ask me. Just lawyers making work for themselves, at the expense of everyone else.

 

[eye95]

I kinda get hung up on words in the Constitution. Shall not be "infringed" means shall not be "infringed." It does not mean shall not be "unreasonably infringed."

It never ceases to amaze me how folks are for original intent and plain reading--until it goes against what they so desperately want the Constitution to say.

In this case that desire is ridiculous. The 4A clearly prohibits what the cops did. The 3A not only does not apply (equally clearly) and is not necessary to argue that the cops violated the hell outta these citizens' rights!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

 

[Grapeshot]

A totally inappropriate response from an official of this site to an official complaint.

Even a Mod is entitled to a good laugh sometimes. When you are in a position to determine what is acceptable or how complaints are handled, then and only then will will such be given different consideration. Think you belabor the point.

I wear two hats comfortably and have very few problems doing so.

 

[eye95]

Even a Mod is entitled to a good laugh sometimes. When you are in a position to determine what is acceptable or how complaints are handled, then and only then will will such be given different consideration. Think you belabor the point.

I wear two hats comfortably and have very few problems doing so.

You don't see the problems your mixing of the roles creates because you are not the subject of that inappropriate abuse of your position. You are the abuser, not the abused.

 

[Grapeshot]

You don't see the problems your mixing of the roles creates because you are not the subject of that inappropriate abuse of your position. You are the abuser, not the abused.

I see quite clearly and until instructed by the site owners to conduct myself differently will continue as before. You continue to publicly belabor the point - report it or don't. You are highjacking the thread.