If I may, since some don't wish to read it on their own:

OK, here's the first question. You have 5 seconds to answer: You're the police and you get a run to a house on shots fired, children screaming.
Click to expand...

Like columbine? I think that the police took a couple of hours to "regroup" before they went in. Sorry to bring that up but it's the truth.

After rereading your post, I can't see where that would be unconstitutional to see what is going on and reacting upon it. Hell, we, civilians, have the same right to intervine in a felony while it's taking place. What does that have to do with this? Substitute you for me, we both have the right to stop a felony if we see it. Also, many states, including mine have a good samitian(sp) law which says that I have to intervine in such a sitution.

So how is this in relation to gathering evidence illegally or unconstitutionally when this post that you've done just makes it human nature to help when you can in such a situation?

You hear someone in trouble, you go and help. If they happen to have things that man has deemed illegal, you look the other way, help them in the situation, and carry on. I would as a civilian that has to help via law. I don't obey that law because it's law, I do it out of morality.

Wayne
 
Wayne...was it constitutional or not for you as the police to enter that house and do the things I said you hypothetically did? (And you don't get to "re-read" the post in real life when there are kids visible lying in pools of their own blood, and God knows who else shot and not visible from the window. Not to mention a possible shooter in the house. Reread it again, and tell me if what I said you hypothetically did was constitutional or not. Come on, you said you understood the constitution.
 
Here is is...let the 4th amendment be your guide....you understand what it says....so....Did you do everything constitutionally when you responded to that run of children screaming?

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and
effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and
no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the
persons or things to be seized.
Click to expand...

How come you can just break that door down without a warrant? Does it say in there that there's a homicide exception to the search warrant rule?
 
Time's up Wayne...The seizure of the gun was unconstitutional. That was the only issue of the whole scenario. Kids are already dead. Nothing you can do there. You searched the house for other victims or bad guys and found none. That was the end of your reasonable search. Anything beyond that was unreasonable without a warrant. You DID know that as soon as you read it the first time right? You wouldn't have opened that drawer at all without a warrant right? You didn't need to re-read it? Because you knew that was a no-no. And without an Inevitable Discovery Exception to the Exclusionary Rule (because that's case law), you lose the gun.
 
God, I hate chess.

How come you can just break that door down without a warrant? Does it say in there that there's a homicide exception to the search warrant rule?
Click to expand...

A felony was in progress, which allows both LEO's and Civilians, to act. For a civilian to break down a door because they are on a witch hunt will not be justified and the civilian will be charged.

Honestly(sp, I told you I was tired), a civilian has more recourse for defense then the LEO in such a situation. Yet if the civilian is wrong, the evidence and even a trial will never manifest. Yet with an LEO, doing something wrong, unlawful/unconstitutional, they will press the evidence into trial.

Believe it or not, the People have vast power over the government, or it used to be. Our mistakes were for the good of society as we were to police our own, a public servent making the same mistakes were grounds for lost of job, or even civil penality.

In the scenerio that you presented, a felony was in progress, so therefore either a civilian or an LEO could intervine and try to save (or protect) the innocents that were harmed. Catching the shooter should be the main course of action. On both sides.

Seeing a dead body is not unreasonalbe to act, and in no law (at least this state) does it consider a need for a warrent on either side, civilian or LEO. Seeing someone in need doesn't consider the same act.

But during the course of each, it doesn't give us the right to look around and charge another with a crime unless that evidence links the crime at hand with the crime that was discovered. That is irrevivate(sp) to the crime that is morally cause for action.

Frank, I'm tired, I have to go to work tomorrow, and I do enjoy, sometimes, our conversations. All I can come to is that we will continue to agree to disagree.

I wish you well to make it five more years and then have all the time that you wish to debate or whatever folks on the computer. I just hope that your union doesn't go the way of United, that could be not fun.

We will have to just agree to not agree. I still say that I'm right, as you will do the same, no one wins, so why even discuss it anymore.

Wayne
 
And, under the circumstances you described, the D.A. would likely get the Inevitable Discovery Exception granted, wouldn't he, Frank?
 
"Tell me who here understands the constitution please...I have questions...."

Frank, your problem with understanding is your hermeneutic (another religious term, but again it applies here). Since you insist that the constitution does not mean what it says (implication of the living document doctrine -- a liberal hermeneutic), then of course you have questions -- even if you read it you can't be sure what it means -- only the annointed priesthood does, what they say goes, a slippery slope to despotism. This is one of the big flaws of such a system of interpretation. Instead, if we do it the sensible way (strict hermeneutic) -- the document says what it means, means what it says, taking into context late 1700's English language usage that the majority of the document is written in and the cultural context of that day -- then we know exactly what it says and means. Any questions can be answered by reading the Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers that we do have, where the finer points and ambiguities are discussed by the architects themselves. Get to reading.
 
Again, as I said before. Strict interpretation of a document is best left to priests and clerics. Bottom line is, what you think the Constitution means and what the SC thinks it means are obviously different. You try your defense against established law. Because if that's what you're preaching to everyone here, you had better be willing to stand in front of the judge, when your butt is reallly in the sling, and recite the Constitution verbatim. Don't go get a lawyer, as one is not proscribed for in the the Constitution, to represent you and come up with some half-cocked story. Stick to your guns and go solely by the word of the document. I do not think you'll fare to well
 
Oh, Frank:

On your hypothetical scenario you gave to Wayne last night:

The key word in the 4th ammendment that applies in this situation is "unreasonable". Yes, that is a subjective word, and it was placed there intentionally. If you were to come on that scene: neighbors & kids screaming, shots fired, bodies on the floor, then it becomes reasonable to kick in the door, it is obvious that a violent felony has happened and may still be in progress. The 4th ammendment restrictions will not apply, and not a jury in the land would fault you for it.

Which also brings up another principle: Jury Nullification. Sometimes laws as written are good laws, but in certain situations are still unjust. Juries are within their rights to nullify the law on a case by case basis. In the situation you bring forward, even if local statute were to prevent you or a civilian from taking action, jury nullification SHOULD prevent action from being taken.
 
Additionally, as has been said somehwere in the ramblings of this thread, tell the judge that because police were never mentioned in the constitution, their existence is unconstitutional, Therfore, your presence before the judge is unconstitutional and you'll be taking your leave now. Come on. That is exactly what you are preaching when you speak of strict interpretations.
 
To give you an idea how far we've come in the last 150 years, the courts used to hold that one could use force, indeed even deadly force, to prevent a police officer from arresting you without a valid warrant.
 
"Again, as I said before. Strict interpretation of a document is best left to priests and clerics."

No. When priests and clerics start "Strictly Interpreting" a document, the "Official" interpretations become clouded by their biases and agendas. They become despotic. They make pronouncements based on what they want the document to say rather than what the intent was of the writers, picking and choosing what suits themselves, and since the people can't be trusted to read and understand for themselves, their opinion goes in the circular file. The priesthood becomes the rulers and the people become slaves to them. In the religious realm, this sort of thing has happened over and again through the ages, we are witnessing it in the ME right now.

The people need to be able to strictly interpret the document themselves, especially in any republic/democracy where the power ultimately resides in the people. How are a people going to elect representatives that will adhere to the principles of the constitution if those same people don't understand the constitution and respect it? They can't, and that's a big part of the problem -- the people are ignorant, willing to listen to the priesthood rather than reading and understanding it themselves. Hence, representatives who talk a good talk and promise the moon but don't give a rat's @$$ about the constitution get elected, and the people are happy with that. And since those very same representatives are responsible for saying who gets to be a priest, there's nobody to cling to the real original meaning of the founding documents. It is sickening.
 
The people need to be able to strictly interpret the document themselves, especially in any republic/democracy where the power ultimately resides in the people.
Click to expand...
Exactly, but as you can read on the other Constitution and BoR "class" being held on the other thread, people cannnot get past the 1st damn paragraph. So, in absense of commonly used language (as in 2005), law professionals are unfortunatley the keepers of the secret code. Why? B/C we can't get past the preamble before all hell breaks loose.
 
----------------
Deleted, redundant
----------------


"Additionally, as has been said somehwere in the ramblings of this thread, tell the judge that because police were never mentioned in the constitution, their existence is unconstitutional, Therfore, your presence before the judge is unconstitutional and you'll be taking your leave now. Come on. That is exactly what you are preaching when you speak of strict interpretations."

No. Your argument is that of absurdity. While it is true that police are not explicitly mentioned, the very existence of the 4th Ammendment implies them. And while police as we know them were not in existence in that day, constables and sherrifs were; and that's pretty much the same idea, the same rules apply. The point is that the State is being bound to certain rules, it really doesn't matter what sort of agents the State may choose to employ. Title changes and terms of employment of State agents really don't matter as far as the rights of the people are concerned.

Besides that, all through the Constitution there are liberal applications of Congressional Delegation clauses, where the legislature is permitted to do things like see to the enforcing of the law by whatever means may be expedient, as long as the rights of the people are respected. I believe that the concept of the police falls into that category, they don't have to be explicitly named.
 
"Why? B/C we can't get past the preamble before all hell breaks loose."

I've been avoiding making this observation on purpose, but there comes a time when it must be made. At times, the garden of liberty must be watered with the blood of patriots. A little hell breaking out in matters such as this is a good thing in the long run. Surrendering our rights to a priesthood and clerics in favor of peace and tranquility is still surrendering.
 
Interesting thread. I probably shouldn't get into it--- I'll probably end up getting my head handed to me, but Frank said "If the Supreme Court hands down a ruling, the ruling is constitutional."

Granted the Supremes are supposed to rule on Constitutionality but history shows that their decisions are frequently dictated more by political rather than Constitutional issues. How else can you explain the Dred Scott decision? While the Declaration of Independence mentions "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" are "among" a group of "unalienable rights," abortion was hardly considered one of them at that time. I think anything like the Campaign Finance Reform bill would have been thoroughly trashed by the Supreme Court in the early part of the 19th century, yet in the 21st it's suddenly Constitutional.
Case law is all too frequently bad law. It is a means for jurists to take short-cuts to decisions they either can't or don't want to properly research. If Judge "A" in BFE ruled that up is really down, then Judge "B" can base his decision on that case and avoid having to make a real decision. Judge "B" not only gets out of researching the issue, he passes a portion of the buck of responsibility to Judge "A". Nowadays there is so much case law recorded that almost any issue can be decided in a variety of ways simply by "cherry picking" case law. Is that Constitutional? According to some it is but most who face that question pass over it and go on to something less controversial.
As a bona fide "Oldfart," I remember that in the late 1940s a number of people were imprisoned or hanged for actions they had taken which were within the law. Unfortunately for them, the law was German law and they were being prosecuted by an international court. History shows that that sort of thing has happened before and will happen again. A time will come when "police officer" won't be a favorable entry in a resumé.
 
No. Your argument is that of absurdity. While it is true that police are not explicitly mentioned, the very existence of the 4th Ammendment implies them. And while police as we know them were not in existence in that day, constables and sherrifs were; and that's pretty much the same idea, the same rules apply. The point is that the State is being bound to certain rules, it really doesn't matter what sort of agents the State may choose to employ. Title changes and terms of employment of State agents really don't matter as far as the rights of the people are concerned.
Click to expand...
I agree, GB. But that is one of the arguments being thrown around in this debate. Specifically, by USP45.
 
And, under the circumstances you described, the D.A. would likely get the Inevitable Discovery Exception granted, wouldn't he, Frank?
Click to expand...

Well, not from THEIR perspective, because they're arguing that case law should not be applicable, just the "constitution" as they see it. No case law, no Inevitable Discovery exception.

If you were to come on that scene: neighbors & kids screaming, shots fired, bodies on the floor, then it becomes reasonable to kick in the door, it is obvious that a violent felony has happened and may still be in progress. The 4th ammendment restrictions will not apply, and not a jury in the land would fault you for it.
Click to expand...

So that scenario was constitutional?? No it wasn't. When the drawer was opened, it became unconstitutional. You searched the house and found no other victims or bad guys. At that point you were REQUIRED to get a warrant to search any farther.

To give you an idea how far we've come in the last 150 years, the courts used to hold that one could use force, indeed even deadly force, to prevent a police officer from arresting you without a valid warrant.
Click to expand...

I believe the courts held (and may still hold, federally speaking) that you can use force, up to and including deadly force when an UNCONSTITUTIONAL arrest is attempted, not a warrantless arrest.

No. When priests and clerics start "Strictly Interpreting" a document, the "Official" interpretations become clouded by their biases and agendas.
Click to expand...

I believe your colleagues on the other thread are still stuck interpreting the preamble. You don't have time to wait that long when you're the police.

I remember that in the late 1940s a number of people were imprisoned or hanged for actions they had taken which were within the law.
Click to expand...

Why go all the way to Germany, OF?? I believe it was "The Greatest Generation" who put all those Japanese- Americans in camps.
 
You're absolutely correct, Frank, regarding the Japanese-Americans. It can and does happen on both sides of the battle-lines. The final determinate of what is "right" or "wrong" lies with who wins the war. But that's always been the case. When the American people (who, by that time, may no longer be called by that name) finally decide they've had enough from whatever "leaders" happen to be in power and institute an armed revolt, atrocities will be commonplace and those the winners commit will be swept under the rug while the losers will be further punished for theirs.

But that subject is for another thread.
 
"But that's always been the case. When the American people (who, by that time, may no longer be called by that name) finally decide they've had enough from whatever "leaders" happen to be in power and institute an armed revolt, atrocities will be commonplace and those the winners commit will be swept under the rug while the losers will be further punished for theirs."

Absolutely. A case in point, that happened right here, back in the 1860's. Seems like they burned this place to the ground: non-combatants and all. And after it all, the losers in the conflict ended up having insult added to injury. The winners even today seem to want to conveniently sweep that under the rug, but it is still remembered around here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top