PDA

View Full Version : Police to search guns in homes--Boston


Can'thavenuthingood
11-17-2007, 7:45 AM
Well this certainly sounds like a great idea. Wonder why we haven't thought of this before.
Have you joined the NRA yet?
Sounds like 'Probable Cause' is about to be redefined.
Vick


http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/bcom_logo_printerfriendly.gifTHIS STORY HAS BEEN FORMATTED FOR EASY PRINTINGhttp://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/from_provider_globe.gif (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/) Police to search for guns in homes

City program depends on parental consent

By Maria Cramer, Globe Staff | November 17, 2007
Boston police are launching a program that will call upon parents in high-crime neighborhoods to allow detectives into their homes, without a warrant, to search for guns in their children's bedrooms.
The program, which is already raising questions about civil liberties, is based on the premise that parents are so fearful of gun violence and the possibility that their own teenagers will be caught up in it that they will turn to police for help, even in their own households.
In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.
If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.
The program was unveiled yesterday by Police Commissioner Edward F. Davis in a meeting with several community leaders.
"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."
Critics said they worry that some residents will be too intimidated by a police presence on their doorstep to say no to a search.
"Our biggest concern is the notion of informed consent," said Amy Reichbach, a racial justice advocate at the American Civil Liberties Union. "People might not understand the implications of weapons being tested or any contraband being found."
But Davis said the point of the program, dubbed Safe Homes, is to make streets safer, not to incarcerate people.
"This isn't evidence that we're going to present in a criminal case," said Davis, who met with community leaders yesterday to get feedback on the program. "This is a seizing of a very dangerous object. . . .
"I understand people's concerns about this, but the mothers of the young men who have been arrested with firearms that I've talked to are in a quandary," he said. "They don't know what to do when faced with the problem of dealing with a teenage boy in possession of a firearm. We're giving them an option in that case."
But some activists questioned whether the program would reduce the number of weapons on the street.
A criminal whose gun is seized can quickly obtain another, said Jorge Martinez, executive director of Project Right, who Davis briefed on the program earlier this week.
"There is still an individual who is an impact player who is not going to change because you've taken the gun from the household," he said.
The program will focus on juveniles 17 and younger and is modeled on an effort started in 1994 by the St. Louis Police Department, which stopped the program in 1999 partly because funding ran out.
Police said they will not search the homes of teenagers they suspect have been involved in shootings or homicides and who investigators are trying to prosecute.
"In a case where we have investigative leads or there is an impact player that we know has been involved in serious criminal activity, we will pursue investigative leads against them and attempt to get into that house with a search warrant, so we can hold them accountable," Davis said.
Police will rely primarily on tips from neighbors. They will also follow tips from the department's anonymous hot line and investigators' own intelligence to decide what doors to knock on. A team of about 12 officers will visit homes in four Dorchester and Roxbury neighborhoods: Grove Hall, Bowdoin Street and Geneva Avenue, Franklin Hill and Franklin Field, and Egleston Square.
If drugs are found, it will be up to the officers' discretion whether to make an arrest, but police said modest amounts of drugs like marijuana will simply be confiscated and will not lead to charges.
"A kilo of cocaine would not be considered modest," said Elaine Driscoll, Davis's spokeswoman. "The officers that have been trained have been taught discretion."
The program will target young people whose parents are either afraid to confront them or unaware that they might be stashing weapons, said Davis, who has been trying to gain support from community leaders for the past several weeks.
One of the first to back him was the Rev. Jeffrey L. Brown, cofounder of the Boston TenPoint Coalition, who attended yesterday's meeting.
"What I like about this program is it really is a tool to empower the parent," he said. "It's a way in which they can get a hold of the household and say, 'I don't want that in my house.' "
Suffolk District Attorney Daniel F. Conley, whose support was crucial for police to guarantee there would be no prosecution, also agreed to back the initiative. "To me it's a preventive tool," he said.
Boston police officials touted the success of the St. Louis program's first year, when 98 percent of people approached gave consent and St. Louis police seized guns from about half of the homes they searched.
St. Louis police reassured skeptics by letting them observe searches, said Robert Heimberger, a retired St. Louis police sergeant who was part of the program.
"We had parents that invited us back, and a couple of them nearly insisted that we take keys to their house and come back anytime we wanted," he said.
But the number of people who gave consent plunged in the next four years, as the police chief who spearheaded the effort left and department support fell, according to a report published by the National Institute of Justice.
Support might also have flagged because over time police began to rely more on their own intelligence than on neighborhood tips, the report said.
Heimberger said the program also suffered after clergy leaders who were supposed to offer help to parents never appeared.
"I became frustrated when I'd get the second, or third, or fourth phone call from someone who said, 'No one has come to talk to me,' " he said. Residents "lost faith in the program and that hurt us."
Boston police plan to hold neighborhood meetings to inform the public about the program. Police are also promising follow-up visits from clergy or social workers, and they plan to allow the same scrutiny that St. Louis did.
"We want the community to know what we're doing," Driscoll said.
Ronald Odom - whose son, Steven, 13, was fatally shot last month as he walked home from basketball practice - was at yesterday's meeting and said the program is a step in the right direction. "Everyone talks about curbing violence," he said, following the meeting. ". . . This is definitely a head start."
Maria Cramer can be reached at mcramer@globe.com (mcramer@globe.com). http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/dingbat_story_end_icon.gif



http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/File-Based_Image_Resource/spacer.gif
© Copyright (http://www.boston.com/help/bostoncom_info/copyright) var crYear = new Date(); document.write(crYear.getFullYear());2007 The New York Times Company

http://nytbglobe.112.2o7.net/b/ss/nytbglobe/1/G.5-PD-S/s7860818371913?[AQB]&ndh=1&t=17/10/2007%207%3A42%3A36%206%20480&pageName=News%20%7C%20Local%20%7C%20Boston%20polic e%20plan%20to%20search%20youths%27%20homes%20for%2 0guns&ch=News&events=event2&c1=News%20%7C%20Local&c5=News%20%7C%20Local%20%7C%20Boston%20police%20pl an%20to%20search%20youths%27%20homes%20for%20guns% 20%7C%20PF&c6=Article%20Page%20%7C%20Globe%20Story&g=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes%3Fmode%3DPF&r=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/&s=1280x1024&c=32&j=1.3&v=Y&k=Y&bw=1253&bh=872&ct=lan&hp=N&[AQE] http://te.boston.com/tte/blank.gif?0.7966770682476365&v=3.9&r=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes/&p=LCN:News%20%7C%20Local&page=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes%3Fmode%3DPF&tz=480&s=13651&c_TID=null http://up.nytimes.com/?d=2&g=1&u=http%3A//www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/11/17/police_to_search_for_guns_in_homes%3Fmode%3DPFPT_A C_Iterate();

Bizcuits
11-17-2007, 7:54 AM
I don't see a problem with this... It's a get out of jail free card for young gang members and troubled youths. If the parents think or maybe do know their kid is doing something wrong. It's a good way to get the right thing done, without ruining your childs life.

Now I'm sure many will say parents should have control of there kids, but lets be honest. Many parents in low income areas don't.

Anything changing with probable cause, because they are getting the guardian consent.

I'd rather have them do this, then ban more guns or install more laws and restrictions on me.

Fjold
11-17-2007, 8:28 AM
Cops are going to ask people to search their homes and if illegal guns are found they won't be used in criminal prosecutions.

Where does "probable cause" come in?

FortCourageArmory
11-17-2007, 9:59 AM
Another in a long line of further erosions to individual rights thanks to the "forward thinking" folks in Boston. Geeze, with a few more of these ideas.......

MedSpec65
11-17-2007, 10:06 AM
If the 2nd Amendment is a collective right, why not the 4th?

Rob454
11-17-2007, 11:02 AM
*&^%THAT. Unless you have a warrant and a real reason to search my house youre not getting in. Its really nice when the city goverment decides what is best for all of us unwashed masses. Gee i guess history hasnt changed much.
before we had kings and queens and lords and boyars. nothing changed much except we have a few freedowm in this country and we're slowly giving tohse up all in the name of safety and now under the excuse of terrorism.
One day we will all wake up when the jackbooted official stepping on our throats and we will wonder what happend
Rob

WolfMansDad
11-17-2007, 11:18 AM
I see this nasty social trend where governments at all levels are overstepping their bounds, not just the federal govt. or the California DOJ.

We must resist this kind of tyranny everywhere it rears its ugly head, or soon our constitution will carry about as much weight as Italian traffic law.

jdberger
11-17-2007, 11:22 AM
Why do I have a feeling that Mayor Newsom and Kamala Harris are going to jump on this bandwagon.

Kamala has already stated that she wants to do house to house searches for guns.

Rem1492
11-17-2007, 11:36 AM
Drugs are more prevalent and more destructive, why cant they start there, or start with searching peoples computers for illegal material. or searching under your mattress for stashed cash from gambling.

why start with guns?

Piper
11-17-2007, 11:53 AM
"I just have a queasy feeling anytime the police try to do an end run around the Constitution," said Thomas Nolan, a former Boston police lieutenant who now teaches criminology at Boston University. "The police have restrictions on their authority and ability to conduct searches. The Constitution was written with a very specific intent, and that was to keep the law out of private homes unless there is a written document signed by a judge and based on probable cause. Here, you don't have that."

I completely agree with this statement. I think this is a bill of goods being sold to generally law abiding public. Let us come into your home and search it for guns, and once we find them we will quietly walk away and nothing further will happen. RIGHT! It's the nanny state becoming more intrusive. Parents need to keep an eye on their own kids and the government needs to BUTT OUT!

Rck'n'ROll
11-17-2007, 12:16 PM
+1 Piper

What ever happened to parents "Policing" their own Children? Why does the freaking government have to step in? It’s for your own protection sir, its going to make the streets a safer, better place, BULLSH*T. It’s just another way to get their foot into YOUR DOOR! We are letting the government slowly but surely take away all of our freedoms. When is America going to wake up and say enough is enough? My answer, when it is to freaking late.:(

Patriot
11-17-2007, 12:28 PM
http://www.upitall.com/Private/u/50/73/1076

berto
11-17-2007, 12:31 PM
Hooray for the police state. Fear mongering and dirty tricks in the name of public safety. Think of the children.

Here's an idea: Why don't the parental units take some responsibility and search the room themselves if they're so scared/worried about junior having a gat or a 20 sack?

mk19
11-17-2007, 12:40 PM
this would be just the start of the gustapo. not that the police already dont act like it. if i remember correctly the last time someone went through the bostonian homes searching for weapons, the red coats got shot.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-17-2007, 5:16 PM
Where does "probable cause" come in?

My thinking is when the Police team ask to search the house and the parents say "ah no I don't think so" and are more than likely a bit nervous as well as unsure of their rights, I can see the police wanting to investigate further and insist on a search because something doesn't feel right.

Vick

dondo
11-17-2007, 5:36 PM
Another in a long line of further erosions to individual rights thanks to the "forward thinking" folks in Boston. Geeze, with a few more of these ideas.......

How is it an erosion of rights if they are only asking to search? Could this be just a way for cops to try to get a handle on gang viloence more than being anti-gun? Just a thought. Oh and when you say parents...that is implying two parents and lets be honest in crappy neighborhoods there are a ton of single moms raising a buttload of rats. I'm not supporting or shooting it down but **** em if they cant keep their kids in line. the police need to lock up their vaginas too.

dwtt
11-17-2007, 5:38 PM
If officers find a gun, police said, they will not charge the teenager with unlawful gun possession, unless the firearm is linked to a shooting or homicide.


You guys keep bringing up probable cause. This is the stuff I worry about. Why won't the police and the DA enforce the law when a crime has been committed? I remember reading once a person had to be 18 to buy rifles and shotguns, and 21 to buy handguns. It would be nice if the Boston Police would actually enforce the laws. Of course, if they actually charged the targeted teenagers with the crimes, then Jesse Jackson will start screaming about racial profiling.

CSDGuy
11-17-2007, 5:59 PM
Actually, I fail to see where there is any civil liberties issues here. The way I read the article, a parent calls the Police to search their own kid's rooms for guns. Unless someone can show me that *I* as a parent in Boston do NOT have the legal right to search or have searched any room in my home, even if it's my own kid's room and my kid is <18 years old...

I just don't see that as a problem. I DO, however, see that it COULD be a problem if the kid is 18, is a resident of that house, and has some sort of exclusive control of his/her room...

Of course, ANY parent who doesn't have the resolve to search his or her own kids' room probably doesn't have the resolve to call the Police to do this search for them...

Shotgun Man
11-17-2007, 6:06 PM
Actually, I fail to see where there is any civil liberties issues here. The way I read the article, a parent calls the Police to search their own kid's rooms for guns. Unless someone can show me that *I* as a parent in Boston do NOT have the legal right to search or have searched any room in my home, even if it's my own kid's room and my kid is <18 years old...
[...]

I think you did misread the article.

"In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave."

There ain't no calling the police. The police are gonna come a'knocking.

Most people would be intimidated and cede to their demands.

So I think most reasonable folks would agree that such a policy does implicate Fourth Amendment issues and should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.

dondo
11-17-2007, 6:17 PM
I think you did misread the article.

"In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave."

There ain't no calling the police. The police are gonna come a'knocking.

Most people would be intimidated and cede to their demands.

So I think most reasonable folks would agree that such a policy does implicate Fourth Amendment issues and should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.

Kind of like how ghetto folk are so intimidated by police they don't give information when asked? I don't buy it. I don't think its anti gun at all as much as trying a fresh angle at gang violence. A better approach might be a MOAB in the center of town.

Shotgun Man
11-17-2007, 6:27 PM
Kind of like how ghetto folk are so intimidated by police they don't give information when asked? I don't buy it. I don't think its anti gun at all as much as trying a fresh angle at gang violence. A better approach might be a MOAB in the center of town.


If that's your view, then you think it's okay to have roving patrols of police asking permission to search your home.

CSDGuy
11-17-2007, 6:30 PM
I think you did misread the article.

"In the next two weeks, Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave."

There ain't no calling the police. The police are gonna come a'knocking.

Most people would be intimidated and cede to their demands.

So I think most reasonable folks would agree that such a policy does implicate Fourth Amendment issues and should be subjected to the strictest scrutiny.
Oh, I most certainly agree that this could bring up 4A issues... especially if the search was based on coerced permission to search... However, the way they've got this set up, they don't need probable cause. If the permission to search isn't coerced, no problem... if it IS, most likely the evidence would be suppressed... bad for the prosecution...

dondo
11-17-2007, 6:34 PM
If that's your view, then you think it's okay to have roving patrols of police asking permission to search your home.

I do not live in a gang area and roving patrols of whoever or whatever can ask to search my home as much as they want. I really don't care.

Shotgun Man
11-17-2007, 6:40 PM
Oh, I most certainly agree that this could bring up 4A issues... especially if the search was based on coerced permission to search... However, the way they've got this set up, they don't need probable cause. If the permission to search isn't coerced, no problem... if it IS, most likely the evidence would be suppressed... bad for the prosecution...

You says it's all about "coerced permission". Do you know how hard it is get a court to find a permission is coerced? Short of the police torturing you, it's gonna be hard to prove.

The police are relying on their inherent intimidative presence to "coerce" consent from the populace. Unfortunately, our lap-dog judiciary allows this.

MedSpec65
11-17-2007, 6:49 PM
Why do I have a feeling that Mayor Newsom and Kamala Harris are going to jump on this bandwagon.

Kamala has already stated that she wants to do house to house searches for guns.Can she subpoena DOJ records to get probable cause? I'll bet she'll try!

Piper
11-17-2007, 7:11 PM
Why do I have a feeling that Mayor Newsom and Kamala Harris are going to jump on this bandwagon.

Kamala has already stated that she wants to do house to house searches for guns.

Actually, Kamala has said that she will take her red coats house to house and for the lack of a better word "compel" people with kids in the home to subject themselves to a "safety" check of their firearms to ensure they are locked away for the safety of "the children." So how is this not a progressive step backwards? Law abiding citizens in other states continue to regain their rights while states like California, Massachusetts and New York controlled by the socialist elitists continue to abuse their authority and intimidate their citizens into forced compliance to these unethical tactics. And some would suggest that it's perfectly legid so long as it isn't them. And some who would consider themselves "patriots" would actually submit to this tactic just to prove they are law abiding. What's up with that?

Solidmch
11-17-2007, 7:43 PM
Actually, Kamala has said that she will take her red coats house to house and for the lack of a better word "compel" people with kids in the home to subject themselves to a "safety" check of their firearms to ensure they are locked away for the safety of "the children." So how is this not a progressive step backwards? Law abiding citizens in other states continue to regain their rights while states like California, Massachusetts and New York controlled by the socialist elitists continue to abuse their authority and intimidate their citizens into forced compliance to these unethical tactics. And some would suggest that it's perfectly legid so long as it isn't them. And some who would consider themselves "patriots" would actually submit to this tactic just to prove they are law abiding. What's up with that?

Finally you and I can agree on something! I agree with everything that you have written on this thread. These city council people think they rule over the citizens. They think they have a dictatorship. Most dont know what the first, second, third or fourth ammentments are. Most do not care! They have very little intelligence, and a hatred for America. They will attempt to use their Police Departments to ennact their will on the people.

SemiAutoSam
11-17-2007, 7:57 PM
a kinder and gentler police state.

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/Political/1775vs2005d.jpg

http://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j184/mag-lock/Political/thesigning.jpg

Diablo
11-17-2007, 9:05 PM
Hell no!!! Just another opportunity to let the government inside your home and life.

metalhead357
11-17-2007, 10:22 PM
How is it an erosion of rights if they are only asking to search? Could this be just a way for cops to try to get a handle on gang viloence more than being anti-gun? Just a thought.

Because its a fishing expedition. If there is NOT enough probable cause...try the next best thing-- ask to search and pray they dont know thier rights or the followup if they say no "Why? Do you have something to hide? If not then you should let us search"

I pray some santimoneous org that is all "pro rights" stands up to this one...whther they are pro or anti gun; all the much better if all the much sooner. This is ludecrous much like the sweeps in the housing projects from years ago................

N6ATF
11-17-2007, 11:03 PM
"Sure you can have my kids' guns, just hand me your metal detector wand so I can sweep by myself and leave anything I find on the vestibule floor for you."

metalhead357
11-18-2007, 12:43 AM
"Sure you can have my kids' guns, just hand me your metal detector wand so I can sweep by myself and leave anything I find on the vestibule floor for you."


I wouldn't even go that far. I'd wanna know who/what/where they got the so called info from that could produce them upon my doorstep without enough for a probable cause search (with warrent) so I'd know who to sue.

I may be close to invoking Godwin's Law or wrath.....but aint ANYBODY getting the eebie jeebies that this smacks of some gestapo- nazi youth crap? I mean heck-- turn in a friend to the cops if they've got a gun...never mind if they actually DID anything with the gun....nevermind that the parents may actually ALLOW the kid to own a handgun ((it IS legal....))..... nope; State knows best:rolleyes:

socalguns
11-18-2007, 4:51 AM
Where'd you get the gun son? I got it from jimmy, he lives next door ...

Piper
11-18-2007, 6:46 AM
Where'd you get the gun son? I got it from jimmy, he lives next door ...

Or maybe Jimmy is a budding competitive pistol shooter who is proud of his talent and rightly brags about it to his friends. And his friends tell their friends "Jimmy has a gun", who naturally tell their friends which eventually gets to the school authorities who freak because of their ignorance and tell the police who freak because they don't have the full scoop on why Jimmy has a gun.

So tell me this can't happen while knowing a top notch straight "A" high school and olympic quality student had her car searched and was subsequently suspended because she had a box of shotgun ammo in her car from shotgun practice the night before.

VegasND
11-18-2007, 6:50 AM
Years ago one of my fellow teachers whispered to me between classes, "Did you know (Student Name) has a gun?" (meaning 'owns' not in personal possession at the time)

My reply, "So, my kids have guns too."

The look on her face: priceless

There are still people in the US who teach their children and raise them to be responsible individuals and not sycophants of the state.

I always knew what was in my childrens' rooms and trusted them to make good decisions or ask for advice. If my kid had found a good deal on a gun--they'd have called me at work and asked about buying it.

N6ATF
11-19-2007, 12:20 AM
I wouldn't even go that far. I'd wanna know who/what/where they got the so called info from that could produce them upon my doorstep without enough for a probable cause search (with warrent) so I'd know who to sue.

I may be close to invoking Godwin's Law or wrath.....but aint ANYBODY getting the eebie jeebies that this smacks of some gestapo- nazi youth crap? I mean heck-- turn in a friend to the cops if they've got a gun...never mind if they actually DID anything with the gun....nevermind that the parents may actually ALLOW the kid to own a handgun ((it IS legal....))..... nope; State knows best:rolleyes:

Nothing's prohibiting them from coming up to your doorstep on a shoddy tip. If pressure is exerted to enter sans warrant, apply pressure back and say you'll search your own home, TYVM. Don't blow them away with tinfoil hattery.

tunder
11-19-2007, 7:46 AM
As a resident of St.Louis I can tell you this was a good program that seemed to do some good.
Many, if not most, of the searches were made on the request of the parents who were worried about teens coming under gang influence.
I was concerned about non-warrented searches at first, but, when the program brought no suits/claims of illegal searches bt the searched parties, my concerns waned.
If the police had their own intelligence on where to search, either from their own investigation or from tips from the public, they got a warrent so there was no question about the legality of the search.
In the end, the program ran out of funding and political support and officially ended.
An incidental result was the closing of a high volume gun shop that was enabling straw man purchases.

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 3:07 PM
......that seemed to do some good.
Many, if not most, of the searches were made on the request of the parents who were worried about teens coming under gang influence.
.:eek:

I'm not calling you a liar....but THAT is just stoooopid; parents cant even get the gaul to search thier won kids' bedrooms and belongings? IfTHATS the case then hell...why not lock up the parents for Asaholic Parenting? They just proved to the cops they couldn't do something simple themselves...............

tunder
11-19-2007, 4:48 PM
You and I both probably own a greater than average number of firearms of many different types and are comfortable in their handling and use.

If we find a handgun we know how to unload and make it safe.

Not so of the average inner city parent.

Many only "know" that guns are what's killing their kids and they want the guns gone from their homes.

subdjoe
11-19-2007, 5:15 PM
"Many, if not most, of the searches were made on the request of the parents who were worried about teens coming under gang influence."

That is a whole lot different than having the cops show up and say they want a look around. That is the parents abdicating to the State their parental authority and getting the State to do what they don't have the brass ones to do. As Metalhead commented, maybe those parents should get a good looking-over by the State and the kids should be moved to foster care.

Two Shots
11-19-2007, 5:29 PM
Total BS that they want to go into anyones house, Heres how that goes. Can we search JJ's room for weapons? Yes thanks Oh is that pot I smell coming from that room? Oh look you have a loaded firearm on your night table (In drawer) Down on the ground,Keep your hands were I can see them etc.. Ok far fetched Ha-ha you think so. This happens and it's like inviting a Vampire into your home, once invited your at his mercy.
What makes the PD think Jr is stupid? Once he knows this will happen Bingo "I'll hide it somewhere else in the house" and then the PD will need to look in the entire house,Car,Garage.
Once it starts and people let them then other states will deem it OK. So I hope they don't give up thier privacy if the parents are worried do the search on thier own...

dondo
11-19-2007, 8:06 PM
Just goes to show no matter where we stand on certain subjects, we definitely stand together when crap is left on our doorstep. I love it.

Annie Oakley
11-19-2007, 8:10 PM
OMG! Did I miss something?

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 8:14 PM
OMG! Did I miss something?

Not really. Just an internet troll who is most likely a 2nd account that is personally antagonizing people.

As soon as one of our awesome mods gets around, much merriment will be had by all!


I still remember the anti-firearm girl with the pics on her website of the fake guns trying to make emo/angst filled poses and was leading people along with slippery slope / straw man arguments.

I do wonder whatever happened to her...

Annie Oakley
11-19-2007, 8:17 PM
Not really. Just an internet troll who is most likely a 2nd account that is personally antagonizing people.

As soon as one of our awesome mods gets around, much merriment will be had by all!


I still remember the anti-firearm girl with the pics on her website of the fake guns trying to make emo/angst filled poses and was leading people along with slippery slope / straw man arguments.

I do wonder whatever happened to her...

That's not very nice.

pnkssbtz
11-19-2007, 8:19 PM
That's not very nice.

Internet trolling isn't very glamorous.

Annie Oakley
11-19-2007, 8:22 PM
Internet trolling isn't very glamorous.

Can't you just kick him off for just being rude?

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 8:36 PM
Just goes to show no matter where we stand on certain subjects, we definitely stand together when crap is left on our doorstep. I love it.

A-friggin men!

dondo
11-19-2007, 8:49 PM
Can't you just kick him off for just being rude?
Yes and I believe they did, however he trolled a number of threads and threw out some bait and a lot us bite. We are like hungry sharks and he was just a wounded fish in the high seas. When your cup overfloweth with testosterone, the nectar of the gods, there is bound to be a bit of a pissing match. Let me be the first to at least tip my hat and apologize for any offensive language. Sometimes a man has to get dirty.

SemiAutoSam
11-19-2007, 8:51 PM
And what fun would that be?

Can't you just kick him off for just being rude?

Patriot
11-19-2007, 8:57 PM
And what fun would that be?

Depending on the setting, it could be quite fun.

THIS...IS...CALGUNS!!!

http://i8.tinypic.com/521kupt.gif

kermit315
11-19-2007, 9:06 PM
:lurk5:

looks like I got here just in time

Annie Oakley
11-19-2007, 9:27 PM
JMLivingston sent me a PM and said that this mess came from my computer. I read the exchanges, but I can't believe that it came from here. I allowed someone to use my computer, be he's a good kid, so I don't understand that. If this did come from here, I apologize and I will talk to the one responsible.

kermit315
11-19-2007, 9:31 PM
in the interest of getting this back on topic and keeping it open.....


what kind of scrutiny, legal or not, do you think will get brought upon those who refuse the searches?

Kestryll
11-19-2007, 9:51 PM
I think it means your going to bed now.

Not just yet, there seems to be more to this than appears on the surface.
Before anyone goes anywhere we're going to do a bit of due diligence and see if we can verify or disprove what's going on.

dondo
11-19-2007, 9:54 PM
If I heard that in a very bad part of town (any town) say like the projects where gangs and drugs are out of hand, I can't say I would have a problem with something like this. I know that the argument could be it erodes the law and makes it easier to confiscate weapons or to further unwarranted searches in other areas. I just would like to give some respect to the original intent or at least how I see it. To tell you the truth, in a lot of places in the United States I wouldnt blink and eye if they were leveled. We have third world right here in a lot of areas and something is going to have to happen. And also everyone keeps saying parents...plural. We all know that daddy is just not a big factor in the ghetto. Everyone wants equal rights and blah blah some peole just don't deserve it. That being said, Costa Mesa isnt exactly on the nations most dangerous city, so what do I know.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-19-2007, 10:07 PM
[quote][I think it means your going to bed now/QUOTE]

Jeez, I missed it, looks like the Janitor made a couple passes through here, nothing more to see but some sparkly glass stuff on the deck.

Meanwhile back to the good neighbor police asking to search your kids room for guns.

Once you open the door and say yes to the search, isn't everything and anything able to be used against you?

If they find a gun in the kids possession you may be immune, but what if they see an NFA restricted device sitting on the kitchen table?
What if they see evidence of contraband or think they see contraband?

Can they flip the pillow over to see if thats a nickel bag under there or oregano?

Its a can of worms, keep them out of the house.
What are they going to tell their buddies at the station working a different case?
Whats that white powdery stuff? Better call the HAZMAT crew, I think we have a toxic spill condition.

The are just doing their job,

Vick

Kestryll
11-19-2007, 10:12 PM
Okay, just to wrap things up, pending a bit more follow up it looks like it was a 'pirating' of a computer so let's not make too big a deal of this, it's pretty much handled.

This has been a test of the emergency troll response.
Had this been a real troll the posts, wit and intellect would have risen above the fourth grade level.
This was only a test.

STAGE 2
11-19-2007, 10:25 PM
Back to the topic at hand, and at the risk of raising the ire of many here, this is perfectly constitutional doesn't violate anyone's civil rights.

The suggestion that police shouldn't be able to do this is the same twisted logic that got us miranda. The police are free to do anything and everything they wish as long as its in accordance with the constitution and other laws. Knocking on doors as asking to search is perfectly fine. I may not like is on a personal level, but if I am going to believe in and support the constitution, then I must support ALL of it. Not just the part that makes life good for me.

In that vein, it should be noted that the constitution is a guide to what rights we have. It is not some failsafe for people who are too stupid, too lazy or too ignorant to make theselves aware of what they have. If john Q public lets in the police than he has no one else to blame but himself.

dondo
11-19-2007, 10:32 PM
Something also tells me, and call me crazy, but if you say yes to a search...don't have an NFA weapon on the countertop. BETTER YET....don't have an NFA weapon. OH and that dime bag..or your crack...or your dead mom in the closet...not a good idea. So Lets clear it up with a little checklist of what NOT ot have in your house if and when the Police ask to search your home:
NFA weapon yes [ ] no [x]
dimebag yes [ ] no [x]
crack yes [ ] no [x]
dead mom yes [ ] no [x]
ducks(in a row) yes [x] no [ ]

There you go. This one is on the house. Have a *****in summer!

metalhead357
11-19-2007, 11:09 PM
The suggestion that police shouldn't be able to do this is the same twisted logic that got us miranda.

In that vein, it should be noted that the constitution is a guide to what rights we have. It is not some failsafe for people who are too stupid, too lazy or too ignorant to make theselves aware of what they have. If john Q public lets in the police than he has no one else to blame but himself.

So are you saying within that twisted logic we have miranda? and that is a BAD thing?

+1 to the fool's wealth...let him/her/them bask in thier own folly.....

STAGE 2
11-19-2007, 11:48 PM
So are you saying within that twisted logic we have miranda? and that is a BAD thing?

+1 to the fool's wealth...let him/her/them bask in thier own folly.....

Yes, miranda is a horrible thing. Its been responsible for letting thousands of criminals go. It doesn't grant anyone any rights, it merely makes the complacent aware.

That is not a sufficient tradeoff.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-20-2007, 8:38 AM
the constitution is a guide to what rights we have

A bit backwards I think.

The Constituion doesn't 'grant' us rights, it 'preserves' those rights as the rights are already in place and grants certain rights to the gov. All things not addressed are left up to the individual states.

Like an insurance policy, you are insured for everything EXCEPT for things the company excludes. The Constitution guarantees all rights of the individual except for those it excluded for the Federal gov.

Might need a Constituional scholar to clarify or correct this but this is what I learned back in high school and still believe it so.

Vick

FortCourageArmory
11-20-2007, 10:56 AM
Yes, miranda is a horrible thing. Its been responsible for letting thousands of criminals go. It doesn't grant anyone any rights, it merely makes the complacent aware.

That is not a sufficient tradeoff.

It scares me that someone can say that with sincerity.

OK, let's say you are stopped by the police. No reason for the stop (according to you). They just pull you out of the car and start asking you where a bunch of rapid-fire questions. Before too long you can't keep up and just break down and confess to something. You don't even know what the original issue was. All you know is you have confessed. At trail, the judge goes through the motions and you end up in prison for 25 to life. If you'll note, at no time were you advised of your right to an attorney or to keep silent or any of your other rights. Without Miranda, the above scenario is all to possible and in fact happened many times. Now, before you say, "No way. I'm too strong for that. It'll never happen to me." Are you willing to bet your freedom or even your life on it?

Miranda is the leash (held by the courts) around the barking police dog's neck that prevents them from railroading someone on a whim. Remember that the next time you think Miranda is a mistake.

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 11:20 AM
A bit backwards I think.

The Constituion doesn't 'grant' us rights, it 'preserves' those rights as the rights are already in place and grants certain rights to the gov. All things not addressed are left up to the individual states.

Like an insurance policy, you are insured for everything EXCEPT for things the company excludes. The Constitution guarantees all rights of the individual except for those it excluded for the Federal gov.

Might need a Constituional scholar to clarify or correct this but this is what I learned back in high school and still believe it so.

Vick

I never said the constitution grants us rights, its a guide to our rights. Two different things.

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 11:29 AM
It scares me that someone can say that with sincerity.

OK, let's say you are stopped by the police. No reason for the stop (according to you). They just pull you out of the car and start asking you where a bunch of rapid-fire questions. Before too long you can't keep up and just break down and confess to something. You don't even know what the original issue was. All you know is you have confessed. At trail, the judge goes through the motions and you end up in prison for 25 to life. If you'll note, at no time were you advised of your right to an attorney or to keep silent or any of your other rights. Without Miranda, the above scenario is all to possible and in fact happened many times. Now, before you say, "No way. I'm too strong for that. It'll never happen to me." Are you willing to bet your freedom or even your life on it?

Miranda is the leash (held by the courts) around the barking police dog's neck that prevents them from railroading someone on a whim. Remember that the next time you think Miranda is a mistake.

Sure I am. The constitution didn't miraculously change when miranda was handed down. I don't have any more rights today than I did before the decision.

If anyone could kindly show me where in the constitution its says that the authorities have an obligation to inform you of your rights before they interrogate you then I'll happily concede the point.

Of course no one can, because it doesn't. Like I said, the constitution spells out some of our rights and the restrictions on the government. If people choose not to take the time to make themselves aware of what they have then its not the fault of the police or anyone else.

FortCourageArmory
11-20-2007, 12:51 PM
All I can say is I'm glad we don't live in the police state your world would be. While 95% of the rank and file officers are stand up men and women, there are more than enough bad apples in ANY department that would take your view that they should be allowed to do anything necessary to get their case solved. This is where we diverge from a free society to a police state. It's just incredible....

SemiAutoSam
11-20-2007, 12:55 PM
Ditto.

I'm sure I wouldnt like it either.

It sounds too much what a Bush dictatorship would be like.


All I can say is I'm glad we don't live in the police state your world would be. It's just incredible....

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 3:16 PM
All I can say is I'm glad we don't live in the police state your world would be. While 95% of the rank and file officers are stand up men and women, there are more than enough bad apples in ANY department that would take your view that they should be allowed to do anything necessary to get their case solved. This is where we diverge from a free society to a police state. It's just incredible....

I know. It would be terrible going back to the way things were right after the constitution was enacted :rolleyes: Its simply a wonder that our nation was able to survive almost 200 years without miranda.

As far as what you said about going to a police state, could you please explain to me what exactly makes life without miranda a police state? Warrants are still required to search, people still have the right to remain silent and still have the right to counsel and to a trial by jury.

Miranda was a perfect example of judicial activism. The people who consider themselves to be defenders of the constitution and strict constructionists cannot support this decision. It was enacted by a liberal court who had a disdain for law enforcement.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-20-2007, 3:35 PM
I always thought of Miranda as a 'reminder' of your Rights.

Since you are under arrest, your mind is going into a panic mode thinking a million thoughts at once so the kind and thoughtful police officer gently reminds you of your Rights so you can stop digging that hole you are standing in.

Vick

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 4:31 PM
I always thought of Miranda as a 'reminder' of your Rights.

Since you are under arrest, your mind is going into a panic mode thinking a million thoughts at once so the kind and thoughtful police officer gently reminds you of your Rights so you can stop digging that hole you are standing in.

Vick

It is a reminder of your rights. Its just not something that 1) should be mandated or 2) can reverse a conviction.

The decision was made up out of whole cloth (or penumbras for those of us so inclined) with no legal or judical basis whatsoever.

Reading things into the constitution is just as bad as reading them out.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-20-2007, 4:49 PM
It is a reminder of your rights. Its just not something that 1) should be mandated or 2) can reverse a conviction.

People should not be told their rights? What? :confused:

KenpoProfessor
11-20-2007, 5:15 PM
Can't you just kick him off for just being rude?

And that, ladies and gents, is exactly the attitude the cops have for coming into the home and looking for guns.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

dondo
11-20-2007, 5:25 PM
And that, ladies and gents, is exactly the attitude the cops have for coming into the home and looking for guns.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
This makes absolutely no sense.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-20-2007, 5:28 PM
This makes absolutely no sense.

Kenpo is kind of funny; he drops in, says something only a few people, if any, understand, and he's off again!

I imagine him riding on a horse while he goes by and posts.

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 5:40 PM
People should not be told their rights? What? :confused:

Why? Where is it in the constitution that says before being arrested or interrogated the police must explain someone their rights? There is no "apathetic" clause in the constitution for those than can't be bothered to read it.

Justice Harlan knew what he was talking about when he was writing his dissenting opinion in Miranda...

In conclusion: nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities. The foray which the Court makes today brings to mind the wise and farsighted words of Mr. Justice Jackson in Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U.S. 157, 181:

This Court is forever adding new stories to the temples of constitutional law, and the temples have a way of collapsing when one story too many is added.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-20-2007, 5:43 PM
Why? Where is it in the constitution that says before being arrested or interrogated the police must explain someone their rights? There is no "apathetic" clause in the constitution for those than can't be bothered to read it.

The people deserve to know what their rights are. Whatever happened to the government serving the people?
Justice should not be based whether or not someone is illiterate, deaf, dumb, blind, whatever.

I'll take Jim Crow for $800, Alex.

Can'thavenuthingood
11-20-2007, 8:11 PM
The people deserve to know what their rights are. Whatever happened to the government serving the people?


Yes people deserve to know their rights.
It or they should have been taught this in school, at one time they were, not so much anymore.
Now everything is a Right.
Rights are confused with privleges and entitlements.

My self I don't have a problem with the police reading those Rights as I think it gives focus to the actual Rights at work.

The government has served way too much to the people in the form of entitlement and various gimme's. Now the public thinks just about everything is a Right and that ain't right.

Vick

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 8:57 PM
The people deserve to know what their rights are. Whatever happened to the government serving the people?
Justice should not be based whether or not someone is illiterate, deaf, dumb, blind, whatever.

I'll take Jim Crow for $800, Alex.

Fallacious argument. We aren't talking about someone who is illiterate, blind, deaf, or needs an interpreter. We are talking about a regular competent US citizen.

As far as people deserving to know their rights, thats a bunch of bunk as well. As the old saying goes, deserves got nothing to do with it. There isn't anything in the constitution that says people need to be informed of their rights.

My guess is that the framers didn't figure on us being such a complacent lot. Either way, there isn't anything that requires the government to do this. Government "serving the people" is a cute little catch phrase but its not in the constitution.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-20-2007, 9:40 PM
The (Miranda) decision was made up out of whole cloth (or penumbras for those of us so inclined) with no legal or judical basis whatsoever.

Reading things into the constitution is just as bad as reading them out.

Chief Justice Earl Warren disagrees, may he rest in peace.

He specifically noted that due to the coercive tactics of police interrogation, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights. Those rights existed before the US Constitution just as sure as your natural right to defend your life in whatever manner you need to.

"... If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona)

Perhaps you liked it better back in 'The Good Old Days®' when the police could keep slapping a suspect awake after an 36-hour marathon interrogation and make them confess to anything they wanted to under the strain of duress? Oh, don't wanna talk eh smart guy? Give him the old one-two Bill, and we'll see if he changes his mind!

What about before the Escobedo v. Illinois ruling where the police could prevent an attorney from seeing his client under interrogation while using language tricks to trap them into admitting a false confession?

How about before Gideon v. Wainwright where we could march some poor bastard straight to the gallows without any legal counsel whatsoever and feel good about it?

The reason these landmark rulings exist is because police abuse caused them into existence.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-20-2007, 10:04 PM
Fallacious argument. We aren't talking about someone who is illiterate, blind, deaf, or needs an interpreter. We are talking about a regular competent US citizen.

As far as people deserving to know their rights, thats a bunch of bunk as well. As the old saying goes, deserves got nothing to do with it. There isn't anything in the constitution that says people need to be informed of their rights.

My guess is that the framers didn't figure on us being such a complacent lot. Either way, there isn't anything that requires the government to do this. Government "serving the people" is a cute little catch phrase but its not in the constitution.

You are calling my argument fallacious while you sit here and preach situational and relativist justice. Amazing. :rolleyes:

Pvt. Cowboy
11-20-2007, 10:20 PM
On the actual original topic, what do you think that these door-to-door firearm searches will be like?

Example 1:

(Kindly Jimmy Stewart voice): "Mrs Washington? Good morning. My name is Detective George Bailey from the Boston Police Department. This is Detective Bert O'Hara. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but we've had a report from one of our sources that your son Jamaal may be in illegal possession of a handgun. Is he here today? Now, don't worry ma'am. With your permission, we'd like to enter your dwelling and determine if this gun can be located. No no ma'am.. Don't cry. If we do locate a gun I can assure you that no charges will be filed against you or your son. All we want to do is take a gun off the street. We simply want to help you help Jamaal. Do you agree?"

Example 2:

(Thick nasally Boston accent while pushing a badge in Mrs. Washington's face): "Yeah, Mrs. Washington. Seems your boy Jamaal is packing a gun and we wanna come in and check it out. Now, if you play along and let us in, we can probably keep him from being killed if he goes out on the street. If you don't, there ain't no telling what could happen once I tell every patrol unit on this beat that your son is presumed armed and dangerous. What? Don't give me that stuff about warrants. I think you better let us come inside and secure that weapon. Know what else we could do? That money you get each month from your welfare check? We can put in a word down at Social Services that you got unreported income. Oh yeah we can. You wanna explain these expensive tablecloths you got in there? Who bought them Christmas toys over there? Hey, who is that man we've been seeing around your apartment? Is that Jamaal's daddy? Oh, who is it then? He bringing you money? Another thing: If we see Jamaal out there on those corners, you ain't gonna be around to protect him are you? We know he's slinging rock. We could toss him every day.' (O'Hara butts in): "Yep, every single day. Maybe we'll let all these other bangers in the neighborhood know it's Jamaal who's bringing the heat down on everyone. So, you wanna let us in NOW?"

Maybe I watch too much 'The Wire' on HBO to be trusting any urban inner city police officers, but I can just imagine that scenario #2 is far more likely than the whitebread Jimmy Stewart 1939 approach from example #1.

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 11:45 PM
Chief Justice Earl Warren disagrees, may he rest in peace.

Early Warren can rot in hell as far as I'm concerned. The warren court was one of the worst things to happen to this nation in almost 200 years of jurisprudence.


He specifically noted that due to the coercive tactics of police interrogation, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth Amendment self-incrimination clause and Sixth Amendment right to an attorney unless a suspect had been made aware of his rights. Those rights existed before the US Constitution just as sure as your natural right to defend your life in whatever manner you need to.

So what? I assume since you're paraphrasing the case, that you've actually read it, and thus have read the dissent. Look at what Harlan says about the constitutionality of the majority's opinion.

But heres the even bigger problem with your argument. Informing someone of their rights and depriving them of their rights are two different things. Because I don't think the police should mirandize a suspect doesn't mean that I agree that they can hold him indefinately without counsel. Apples meet oranges.





"... If the individual indicates in any manner, at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease ... If the individual states that he wants an attorney, the interrogation must cease until an attorney is present. At that time, the individual must have an opportunity to confer with the attorney and to have him present during any subsequent questioning. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miranda_v._Arizona)

Ah wikipedia, the everymans law school:rolleyes.


Perhaps you liked it better back in 'The Good Old Days®' when the police could keep slapping a suspect awake after an 36-hour marathon interrogation and make them confess to anything they wanted to under the strain of duress? Oh, don't wanna talk eh smart guy? Give him the old one-two Bill, and we'll see if he changes his mind!

What about before the Escobedo v. Illinois ruling where the police could prevent an attorney from seeing his client under interrogation while using language tricks to trap them into admitting a false confession?

How about before Gideon v. Wainwright where we could march some poor bastard straight to the gallows without any legal counsel whatsoever and feel good about it?

The reason these landmark rulings exist is because police abuse caused them into existence.

You can list all the irrelevant court cases you want. It doesn't change anything regarding miranda. Until someone here shows me where it says that the constitution requires that law enforcement apprise people of their rights prior to an arrest/interrogation, all of you folks are making stuff out of thin air.

Thats all well and good because in this particular instance its a hinderance on the government. However the next time it just might well be a hinderance on us citizens, and those of you who had no problem with the former will have no justification for arguing against the latter.




You are calling my argument fallacious while you sit here and preach situational and relativist justice. Amazing.

Well, if you consider the united states constitution situational and relative, then yeah.

STAGE 2
11-20-2007, 11:49 PM
On the actual original topic, what do you think that these door-to-door firearm searches will be like?

Example 1:

(Kindly Jimmy Stewart voice): "Mrs Washington? Good morning. My name is Detective George Bailey from the Boston Police Department. This is Detective Bert O'Hara. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but we've had a report from one of our sources that your son Jamaal may be in illegal possession of a handgun. Is he here today? Now, don't worry ma'am. With your permission, we'd like to enter your dwelling and determine if this gun can be located. No no ma'am.. Don't cry. If we do locate a gun I can assure you that no charges will be filed against you or your son. All we want to do is take a gun off the street. We simply want to help you help Jamaal. Do you agree?"

Example 2:

(Thick nasally Boston accent while pushing a badge in Mrs. Washington's face): "Yeah, Mrs. Washington. Seems your boy Jamaal is packing a gun and we wanna come in and check it out. Now, if you play along and let us in, we can probably keep him from being killed if he goes out on the street. If you don't, there ain't no telling what could happen once I tell every patrol unit on this beat that your son is presumed armed and dangerous. What? Don't give me that stuff about warrants. I think you better let us come inside and secure that weapon. Know what else we could do? That money you get each month from your welfare check? We can put in a word down at Social Services that you got unreported income. Oh yeah we can. You wanna explain these expensive tablecloths you got in there? Who bought them Christmas toys over there? Hey, who is that man we've been seeing around your apartment? Is that Jamaal's daddy? Oh, who is it then? He bringing you money? Another thing: If we see Jamaal out there on those corners, you ain't gonna be around to protect him are you? We know he's slinging rock. We could toss him every day.' (O'Hara butts in): "Yep, every single day. Maybe we'll let all these other bangers in the neighborhood know it's Jamaal who's bringing the heat down on everyone. So, you wanna let us in NOW?"

Maybe I watch too much 'The Wire' on HBO to be trusting any urban inner city police officers, but I can just imagine that scenario #2 is far more likely than the whitebread Jimmy Stewart 1939 approach from example #1.

And assuming the cops choose #2 could you tell me why that violates the constitution?

FortCourageArmory
11-20-2007, 11:58 PM
I am still amazed that Stage 2 considers coersive and abusive police tactics as acceptable and even constitutionally protected. Don't you see that you are advocating a police state? Are you that naive? Have you zero sense of right and wrong? Or is there only legal and illegal? You really should add a dash of color to your black and white world. You're missing a whole lot of really good stuff.

N6ATF
11-21-2007, 12:17 AM
Just because something does not violate the constitution does not mean that it is also constitutionally protected.

Turn off your boob tubes, folks.

Pvt. Cowboy
11-21-2007, 9:03 AM
You can list all the irrelevant court cases you want. It doesn't change anything regarding miranda. Until someone here shows me where it says that the constitution requires that law enforcement apprise people of their rights prior to an arrest/interrogation, all of you folks are making stuff out of thin air.


I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Gideon (1963) gave birth to Escobedo (1964) which in turn gave birth to Miranda (1966). You have a right against self-incrimination. You have a right to counsel. I regard the Miranda warning as not just informing those in custody of that right, but reminding the arresting officer of it as well.

Where does it exist in the US Constitution? As sad as you may find it's true, the US Constitution means whatever the US Supreme Court says that it does.

STAGE 2
11-21-2007, 12:34 PM
I am still amazed that Stage 2 considers coersive and abusive police tactics as acceptable and even constitutionally protected.

And where have I advocated that. Care to point it out?


Don't you see that you are advocating a police state? Are you that naive? Have you zero sense of right and wrong? Or is there only legal and illegal? You really should add a dash of color to your black and white world. You're missing a whole lot of really good stuff.

So prior to miranda the united states was a communist nation? Is that what you're trying to say? Anyone here care to look at stats of police brutality pre and post miranda? You might be surprised what you find.

As far as what I think, yes the constitution is black and white. Life may not be, but the constitution is. I don't make things up as I go. Apparently some of you do. Through all this hype and hyperbole, I'm still waiting for someone to show me some constitutional justification for this.



I don't think it's irrelevant at all. Gideon (1963) gave birth to Escobedo (1964) which in turn gave birth to Miranda (1966). You have a right against self-incrimination. You have a right to counsel. I regard the Miranda warning as not just informing those in custody of that right, but reminding the arresting officer of it as well.

Where does it exist in the US Constitution? As sad as you may find it's true, the US Constitution means whatever the US Supreme Court says that it does.

Its irrelevant in that we arent discussion the actions of the police. Rather we are discussing whether or not the constitution requires them to remind people of their rights prior to an arrest/interrogation.

For example, if the police hold someone for an extended length of time and deny them a right to counsel after repeated requests that is clearly a constitutional violation. Whether the police tell the suspect they have that right isn't the problem, its whether they violate it.

I fully support convictions being thrown out if there is evidence of deprevation of rights. I do not support throwing out convictions where there is absolutely no evidence of misconduct, but someone was not properly mirandized.

Telling someone of what their rights are is not and should not be required under the constitution. Not depriving someone of their rights is what the constitution requires.

Liberty and freedom is what the constitution requires, not paternalism.

FortCourageArmory
11-21-2007, 2:54 PM
Well, since common sense has failed, let's try logic.

1. The duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
2. In that capacity the Supreme Court had handed down decisions that Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda are integral parts of the Constitution.
3. No court in the 40+ years since those decisions were handed down has seen fit to reverse ANY of them.
4. Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda are law.

You don't have to like it. But until the nine old guys and gals in the black robes rule different, they are the law. They'll still be law no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge them. Feel free to hold your breath until you turn blue if you think it'll help. We'll wait.

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 3:12 PM
On the actual original topic, what do you think that these door-to-door firearm searches will be like?

Example 1:

(Kindly Jimmy Stewart voice): "Mrs Washington? Good morning. My name is Detective George Bailey from the Boston Police Department. This is Detective Bert O'Hara. Now, this may come as a shock to you, but we've had a report from one of our sources that your son Jamaal may be in illegal possession of a handgun. Is he here today? Now, don't worry ma'am. With your permission, we'd like to enter your dwelling and determine if this gun can be located. No no ma'am.. Don't cry. If we do locate a gun I can assure you that no charges will be filed against you or your son. All we want to do is take a gun off the street. We simply want to help you help Jamaal. Do you agree?"

Example 2:

(Thick nasally Boston accent while pushing a badge in Mrs. Washington's face): "Yeah, Mrs. Washington. Seems your boy Jamaal is packing a gun and we wanna come in and check it out. Now, if you play along and let us in, we can probably keep him from being killed if he goes out on the street. If you don't, there ain't no telling what could happen once I tell every patrol unit on this beat that your son is presumed armed and dangerous. What? Don't give me that stuff about warrants. I think you better let us come inside and secure that weapon. Know what else we could do? That money you get each month from your welfare check? We can put in a word down at Social Services that you got unreported income. Oh yeah we can. You wanna explain these expensive tablecloths you got in there? Who bought them Christmas toys over there? Hey, who is that man we've been seeing around your apartment? Is that Jamaal's daddy? Oh, who is it then? He bringing you money? Another thing: If we see Jamaal out there on those corners, you ain't gonna be around to protect him are you? We know he's slinging rock. We could toss him every day.' (O'Hara butts in): "Yep, every single day. Maybe we'll let all these other bangers in the neighborhood know it's Jamaal who's bringing the heat down on everyone. So, you wanna let us in NOW?"

Maybe I watch too much 'The Wire' on HBO to be trusting any urban inner city police officers, but I can just imagine that scenario #2 is far more likely than the whitebread Jimmy Stewart 1939 approach from example #1.

I think both examples are by someone who is to defensive... :rolleyes:


More of a realistic example would be;

Detectives will check school records for teens who fight a lot, have been previously arrested and have history of violence, possible gang activity, or depression.

The parents of those teens will be contacted and asked if they would consent to a search of their childrens bedroom for possible weapons. The detectives will explain the teens won't face charges for having the weapons, if they are found during the consent search. The search will allow the teen to seek help without facing charges, as many teens often are.


Many of you are taking this out of context and thinking as if the Nazi storm troopers are kicking down doors for weapons.

RE-READ THE ARTICLE

Boston police officers who are assigned to schools will begin going to homes where they believe teenagers might have guns. The officers will travel in groups of three, dress in plainclothes to avoid attracting negative attention, and ask the teenager's parent or legal guardian for permission to search. If the parents say no, police said, the officers will leave.

No where in this does it say every single parent of a student will be contacted. It says those who they believe may have guns. They aren't going to be targeting Mary Le Sue who has straight A's or Tom Johnson who's playing quarterback. It will be targeting 50 Cent Junior with the ounce of weed and Snoop dog Junior with his history of fights, maybe even The Ridolen poster children as well.

Smokeybehr
11-21-2007, 3:17 PM
Stop trying to justify an end-run around the Constitution. No warrant, no search. If they think the kid is carrying a gun, do a Terry Stop and FI the kid. Don't harrass his parents at home.

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 3:18 PM
No where in this does it say every single parent of a student will be contacted. .

Not yet......

We've ALL lived the slippery slope argument with gun control. Think this will be any different? When asking *some* students dont work...they'll move onto more...then *most* then all................

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 3:23 PM
Stop trying to justify an end-run around the Constitution. No warrant, no search. If they think the kid is carrying a gun, do a Terry Stop and FI the kid. Don't harrass his parents at home.

Then the parent screams harassment.

or

The kid blows someone away and the parent says, "well I couldn't have known."

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 3:25 PM
Not yet......

We've ALL lived the slippery slope argument with gun control. Think this will be any different? When asking *some* students dont work...they'll move onto more...then *most* then all................

Well when it gets to that point then I'll support your stance, because they will be stepping outside of the bounds of what they proposed, until then I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they do specifically what they stated they would.

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 3:57 PM
Well when it gets to that point then I'll support your stance, because they will be stepping outside of the bounds of what they proposed, until then I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt and hope they do specifically what they stated they would.


LOL! NO Offense meant...but how old are you? With trust like that I know a couple of peeps that have a bridge for sale:p We've been sliddin' into the police state for a long while now...this is just another inch down that slope.

C'mon...Power corrupts..Absolute power corrupts absolutely;)

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 4:03 PM
LOL! NO Offense meant...but how old are you? With trust like that I know a couple of peeps that have a bridge for sale:p We've been sliddin' into the police state for a long while now...this is just another inch down that slope.

C'mon...Power corrupts..Absolute power corrupts absolutely;)

Sorry, I don't wear my Tinfoil hat to bed with me...


I'd rather have cops going after kids with a history of gang activity, depression and other violent behaviors, then I would a law restricting my rights.

This is not a violation of my rights, as I can easily say "No" to their request for a consent to search.


The same as a gay man can ask to have butt sex with me. It doesn't mean I'm going to say Yes. Although I'm sure many people would be afraid they might accidently say yes to a question like this...

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 4:07 PM
Although I'm sure many people would be afraid they might accidently say yes to a question like this...


LOL! you're probably right unfortunately! but I aint touching the rest of that!:D

Paint me the cynic. Today's luxeries are tomorrows "necessities". The cops DONT need to do this. Let them pursue down established venues...door to door sounds very facist to me...even if the door to door is by "tip" only.

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 4:12 PM
LOL! you're probably right unfortunately! but I aint touching the rest of that!:D

Paint me the cynic. Today's luxeries are tomorrows "necessities". The cops DONT need to do this. Let them pursue down established venues...door to door sounds very facist to me...even if the door to door is by "tip" only.

It isn't door to door though. It is profiling your kids, which is I believe a good idea. If you want to stop gang activity you need to start with kids.

Your fixated on the idea they are going to setup road blocks and bring in a swat team demanding to see your weapons cache.

They are looking for illegal weapons. You know the ones which are stolen, unregistered, have illegal mods or have serial numbers filed off. I have no problem with them removing stolen guns from people.

This isn't a door to door sweep, but a system to allow them to stop and catch troubled teens before it is to late.

Is it the best idea? NOPE. Is it a waste of time and money? YEAP. Do I think they could do a better program? YEAP. Do I think this program will help the communities? NOPE

What I do think is I'd rather have them targeting troubled teens and suspicious teens, then targeting guns and gun owners.

STAGE 2
11-21-2007, 4:15 PM
Well, since common sense has failed, let's try logic.

1. The duty of the Supreme Court is to interpret the Constitution.
2. In that capacity the Supreme Court had handed down decisions that Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda are integral parts of the Constitution.
3. No court in the 40+ years since those decisions were handed down has seen fit to reverse ANY of them.
4. Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda are law.

You don't have to like it. But until the nine old guys and gals in the black robes rule different, they are the law. They'll still be law no matter how many times you refuse to acknowledge them. Feel free to hold your breath until you turn blue if you think it'll help. We'll wait.


1. Its the duty of the supreme court to interpret the constitution.
2. In that capacity, the supreme court has handed down the decision in Miller.
3. No court in nearly 70 years since that decision has seen fit to reverse it.
4. Miller is law.


See how fun this can be. I can think of all sorts of decisions that have been or are law. Plessy, Kelo, Dred Scott, Korematsu, Planned parenthood, etc. I could go on, but I hope you get the point.

I'm not sitting here trying to tell you Miranda isn't law. It is. What I am saying is that the 6 men who made it the law simply created it out of whole cloth. As such, it can and should go away in the same manner it arrived, namely a puff of smoke.

If you think differently I'd love for you to cite the specific section of the constitution that mandates for police to inform people of their rights.

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 4:45 PM
It isn't door to door though. It is profiling your kids, which is I believe a good idea. If you want to stop gang activity you need to start with kids..
And profiling is next door kinship to quota's in some people's minds. If you want to stop gang activity...you need to start with GOOD PARENTING.

Your fixated on the idea they are going to setup road blocks and bring in a swat team demanding to see your weapons cache. . Nope....no fixation of the sort...just a love of freedom and the protections of the Constitution afforded thereof. As said earlier- this is a fishing expedition & while I side with the thought that Miranda is a GOOD hing I also side with the notion that not all underprivalaged kids & parents know thier rights...and this play will have many cowering to the cops not knowing they CAN truly say no without reprisal.

They are looking for illegal weapons. You know the ones which are stolen, unregistered, have illegal mods or have serial numbers filed off. I have no problem with them removing stolen guns from people. . Hugh? HOW DO THEY KNOW THEY ARE ILLEGAL? As already noted- Kids CAN LEGALLY own guns. They are on a fishing expedition because they do not have probable cause but have a "profile" and a tip or a hunch...last I checked- NONE of those were sufficient to proceed in criminal matters. This AINT an investigation...it is surfing the surface of probable cause because they dont have anything else.

This isn't a door to door sweep, but a system to allow them to stop and catch troubled teens before it is to late. . While I like the sentiment...we all already know that if they're into gangs and already owning <illegal> guns then they are ALREADY "too late" for prevention schemes and the shift needs to occur to PROPER prosecution if warrented...HOW pray tell are the kids going to be "made better" under this inane non-starter of collecting <illegal> guns without a warrrent and without a followup prosecution? Its a free walk...and its stooopid...and its skirts the issues of intelligent investigation, proper police procedures, established constitutional law, and the principles "to be secure" in ones home.

Is it the best idea? NOPE. Is it a waste of time and money? YEAP. Do I think they could do a better program? YEAP. Do I think this program will help the communities? NOPE.
On this we AGREE:D

What I do think is I'd rather have them targeting troubled teens and suspicious teens, then targeting guns and gun owners. you say target this RATHER than that...you yourself ARE making the points I alluded to...this is a goofy drag net for no good purpose and with some mighty big holes in it.

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 4:53 PM
If you think differently I'd love for you to cite the specific section of the constitution that mandates for police to inform people of their rights.

Nope. You made your point loud and clear; but fearing the police state to which we seemd destined by looking at the sumation of things for the last...oh...50 or so years...Miranda IS a good thing on multiple fronts as our schools turn out kids that can't read...let alone know thier rights. It DOES remind police that there are lines they can not cross (at least in good faith). It does remind <some> that would otherwise know thier rights to assess a situation whereby saying "No" to a cop would otherwise be beneficial.......

Do we NEED miranda....no. Shoud it go away? Prudence says otherwise. As for 6 pulling the rabbit outta thier arse...it aint the first time they've done it; go after BIGGER fish...like the interpretation and expansion of the Commerce Clause...Now THAT has led to some outlandish crap. Miranda may be well overplayed & I fully agree a perp should NOT walk because Miranda was not read or read right....its pretty low on the totum pole of things that need to change if ya' ask me.........

STAGE 2
11-21-2007, 5:30 PM
Nope. You made your point loud and clear; but fearing the police state to which we seemd destined by looking at the sumation of things for the last...oh...50 or so years...Miranda IS a good thing on multiple fronts as our schools turn out kids that can't read...let alone know thier rights. It DOES remind police that there are lines they can not cross (at least in good faith). It does remind <some> that would otherwise know thier rights to assess a situation whereby saying "No" to a cop would otherwise be beneficial.......

Do we NEED miranda....no. Shoud it go away? Prudence says otherwise. As for 6 pulling the rabbit outta thier arse...it aint the first time they've done it; go after BIGGER fish...like the interpretation and expansion of the Commerce Clause...Now THAT has led to some outlandish crap. Miranda may be well overplayed & I fully agree a perp should NOT walk because Miranda was not read or read right....its pretty low on the totum pole of things that need to change if ya' ask me.........

If you think its low on the pole than you've missed the point. The overall issue isn't whether police have to remind people of their rights, its people creating things that aren't there or reading out things that are.

Like I said, everyone thinks miranda is peachy because it helps us out. Thats not a sufficient justification for usurping the constitution. The next time around some justice might think up a framework that hurts us.

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 5:56 PM
And profiling is next door kinship to quota's in some people's minds. If you want to stop gang activity...you need to start with GOOD PARENTING.

Good parenting is a lot harder, then helping the kids. Parents already have their minds set. Odds are daddy is already in jail and momma don't care or doesn't have time.

If they were worried about quota's they wouldn't be sending 3 cops. They'd maximize their force and find better ways. This is a community service for troubled teens.

Nope....no fixation of the sort...just a love of freedom and the protections of the Constitution afforded thereof. As said earlier- this is a fishing expedition & while I side with the thought that Miranda is a GOOD hing I also side with the notion that not all underprivalaged kids & parents know thier rights...and this play will have many cowering to the cops not knowing they CAN truly say no without reprisal.

This has nothing to do with what I said, but good luck at trying to throw a curve ball into the mix. I'm arguring this program being a better idea then banning firearms. Your arguing constitutional rights and freedoms.. Asking for consent to search a suspected violent or troubled teens room has nothing to do with this....

Hugh? HOW DO THEY KNOW THEY ARE ILLEGAL? As already noted- Kids CAN LEGALLY own guns.

Because when they notice the serial numbers are filed off, they can take the weapon. Or when they radio dispatch and have the serial numbers ran. When dispatch comes back and says "Stolen" or "Unregistered" then they have a problem.

So a 15yr old has a right to own a .380 jennings with the serial numbers grinded off, and the parents had no clue.

Your assuming the cops will just automatically take ALL guns. If the parent legally has a firearm in their childs room, the parent can speak up, or remove the firearm prior to consenting to the search.


They are on a fishing expedition because they do not have probable cause but have a "profile" and a tip or a hunch...

YEAP, because waiting for a crime to happen, doesn't stop the crime. This is better then sitting around waiting and doing nothing.


While I like the sentiment...we all already know that if they're into gangs and already owning <illegal> guns then they are ALREADY "too late" for prevention schemes and the shift needs to occur to PROPER prosecution if warrented...

You just contradicted yourself, because above you stated the parents are the ones who need to be changed. A 17yr - 10yr old caught with a gun has a MUCH better CHANCE of being turned around then a full grown adult. It happens every day. I'm not quick to give up on troubled youths, and sadly the kids in depression who are planning another "Columbine" can get some therapy.


this is a goofy drag net for no good purpose and with some mighty big holes in it.

It has a purpose, to take illegal firearms away from youths, without blood shed and without prosecution, so parents, schools and others can hopfully seek help before the teen ends up in prison or a coffin.

KenpoProfessor
11-21-2007, 6:10 PM
Kids have a point of no return, to the good or to the bad. If they're 10-15 years old, and already packing a gun (gang affiliated), good chance they've hit the PONR, let them die or rot in jail, preferably before they procreate. I won't hesitate a millisecond before I put a .45 slug in one of 'em at that age either should the situation dictate that.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Bizcuits
11-21-2007, 6:11 PM
Kids have a point of no return, to the good or to the bad. If they're 10-15 years old, and already packing a gun (gang affiliated), good chance they've hit the PONR, let them die or rot in jail, preferably before they procreate. I won't hesitate a millisecond before I put a .45 slug in one of 'em at that age either should the situation dictate that.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

Not saying I would hesitate either, however instead of spending money on prisons, lets try something new and give it a worth while try.

dondo
11-21-2007, 6:19 PM
The same as a gay man can ask to have butt sex with me. It doesn't mean I'm going to say Yes. Although I'm sure many people would be afraid they might accidently say yes to a question like this...
You had me at hello.

dondo
11-21-2007, 6:21 PM
Kids have a point of no return, to the good or to the bad. If they're 10-15 years old, and already packing a gun (gang affiliated), good chance they've hit the PONR, let them die or rot in jail, preferably before they procreate. I won't hesitate a millisecond before I put a .45 slug in one of 'em at that age either should the situation dictate that.

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde
Does your chest get sore from all that thumping? I seriously don't get you.

KenpoProfessor
11-21-2007, 6:40 PM
Does your chest get sore from all that thumping? I seriously don't get you.

You don't have to get me, in fact, wouldn't it be best for you just to put me on your IGNORE list, that way, you don't have to read what I'm posting.

Clyde

M. Sage
11-21-2007, 6:49 PM
Does your chest get sore from all that thumping? I seriously don't get you.

You don't have to get me, in fact, wouldn't it be best for you just to put me on your IGNORE list, that way, you don't have to read what I'm posting.

Clyde

Both of you: knock it off.

dondo
11-21-2007, 7:30 PM
Both of you: knock it off.

No problem. I will humbly forgo any further posting of such nature......Kenpo, my apologies for a childish remark.

FortCourageArmory
11-21-2007, 10:02 PM
If you think its low on the pole than you've missed the point. The overall issue isn't whether police have to remind people of their rights, its people creating things that aren't there or reading out things that are.

Like I said, everyone thinks miranda is peachy because it helps us out. Thats not a sufficient justification for usurping the constitution. The next time around some justice might think up a framework that hurts us.

OK, follow along. The 5th Amendment outlines that everyone is protected against self-incrimination. The 6th Amendment provides that everyone has a right to counsel at trial. Gideon mandated that EVERYONE be provided with counsel period. Escobedo expanded on the right to an attorney to include during interrogation. Miranda enumerated that the subject being questioned be informed of their rights. Where is anything being "made up out of whole cloth"? There was precedent and standing for the decision. The Warren court gave us Miranda. The Rehnquist court re-visited Miranda in Dickerson v The United States and upheld Miranda 7-2. Rehnquist even called the Miranda warnings "part of our national culture".....except in Stage 2's world, that is.

If you acknowledge the basic rights that the Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda decisions enumerated, can you also acknowledge the abuse of police powers that brought about those decisions? Miranda isn't the end of the civilized world. It doesn't even register as a bad idea. It's a limitation on overly-agressive police practices and a affirmation that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Those are the tenents of our legal system, aren't they? Innocent until proven guilty.....

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-21-2007, 10:07 PM
Well, if you consider the united states constitution situational and relative, then yeah.

Look. The Constitution and every single founding father document is a philosophy that has been applied into law. Overall, it's a pretty damn good thing that is worth keeping. So far your argument is unjustified merely because you are arguing over whether or not something was written in the Constitution. Your whole argument of "it's not in the Constitution" has no solid basis. If the Constitution did say that "the people upon arrest must be informed of their rights" you wouldn't have a problem with it. Do you see the problem?

For the original issue, I disagree with police going house to house merely because they think kids might be getting ahold of their parents' guns. If there is some solid evidence for it I have no problem because there is some substantiation there.

metalhead357
11-21-2007, 11:02 PM
Good parenting is a lot harder, then helping the kids. Parents already have their minds set. Odds are daddy is already in jail and momma don't care or doesn't have time.

If they were worried about quota's they wouldn't be sending 3 cops. They'd maximize their force and find better ways. This is a community service for troubled teens.

This has nothing to do with what I said, but good luck at trying to throw a curve ball into the mix. I'm arguring this program being a better idea then banning firearms. Your arguing constitutional rights and freedoms.. Asking for consent to search a suspected violent or troubled teens room has nothing to do with this....

Because when they notice the serial numbers are filed off, they can take the weapon. Or when they radio dispatch and have the serial numbers ran. When dispatch comes back and says "Stolen" or "Unregistered" then they have a problem.

So a 15yr old has a right to own a .380 jennings with the serial numbers grinded off, and the parents had no clue.

Your assuming the cops will just automatically take ALL guns. If the parent legally has a firearm in their childs room, the parent can speak up, or remove the firearm prior to consenting to the search.

YEAP, because waiting for a crime to happen, doesn't stop the crime. This is better then sitting around waiting and doing nothing.

You just contradicted yourself, because above you stated the parents are the ones who need to be changed. A 17yr - 10yr old caught with a gun has a MUCH better CHANCE of being turned around then a full grown adult. It happens every day. I'm not quick to give up on troubled youths, and sadly the kids in depression who are planning another "Columbine" can get some therapy.

It has a purpose, to take illegal firearms away from youths, without blood shed and without prosecution, so parents, schools and others can hopfully seek help before the teen ends up in prison or a coffin.

Sorry if my typing is worse than usual... I'm on the road and on my crappy laptop.......

We're gonna have to agree to disagree: i DO see this as an issue of freedoms....not of prosecutorial expediency OR what not. Strangely enough I DO get that you want things to change; SO DO I... I just DO NOT see this as a valid way...the ends do not justify the means

I said <illegal> guns bcause the parents may not know giving thier kids a gun is ok.....or even if they do--> this gives them ready access to the rest of the house arguably under the common access area rules.

More when I'm on a 'real' computer and not a wrist breaker lapper.:o

STAGE 2
11-22-2007, 12:56 AM
OK, follow along. The 5th Amendment outlines that everyone is protected against self-incrimination. The 6th Amendment provides that everyone has a right to counsel at trial. Gideon mandated that EVERYONE be provided with counsel period. Escobedo expanded on the right to an attorney to include during interrogation. Miranda enumerated that the subject being questioned be informed of their rights. Where is anything being "made up out of whole cloth"? There was precedent and standing for the decision. The Warren court gave us Miranda. The Rehnquist court re-visited Miranda in Dickerson v The United States and upheld Miranda 7-2. Rehnquist even called the Miranda warnings "part of our national culture".....except in Stage 2's world, that is.

Since the 60's Miranda has become part of our national culture. Anyone who's ever seen a movie or turned on a TV can read you a butchered version of it from memory. That is beyond dispute. Being a part of "national culture" however means diddly squat with respect to law or the constitution.

Likewise, your attachment to Wainwright and Escobedo is just as useless. Sure these cases provided (or enumerated) the right for everyone to have an attorney, and have an attorney be present during questioning, but the thing is that I can open my handy dandy pocket constitution and flip to the page where it says I'm entitled to counsel. Hence these decisions have a constitutional basis. In other words, these cases fleshed out the details of a tangible right by answering the question of who the 6th applied to and how early does the right to counsel exist.

Miranda has no such basis. There is nothing in the constitution that one can use as a starting point. Sure the Rehnquist court affirmed Miranda. There have been plenty of horrible precedents upheld for no other reason than they have become "settled law" simply because they are old.

But I'm glad you bring up that case. Since some of you here think I'm senile I encourage you to read Scalia's dissent, specifically the parts where he points out the court's hypocracy citing to seeveral cases where the court had declined to exclude evidence even though the suspect had not been mirandized. If miranda is in fact required by the constitution, then there is no circumstance in which it could not be given and a confession still used as evidence. Since this isn't the case than miranda must not be a constitutional requirement.

Of course this would mean that miranda is simply a judicially imposed safeguard subject to change by an act of congress. The halfassed reasoning the court gave is precisely because they have no constitutional foundation to stand on. Hence why Scalia wrote...

For these reasons, and others more than adequately developed in the Miranda dissents and in the subsequent works of the decision’s many critics, any conclusion that a violation of the Miranda rules necessarily amounts to a violation of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination can claim no support in history, precedent, or common sense, and as a result would at least presumptively be worth reconsidering even at this late date. But that is unnecessary, since the Court has (thankfully) long since abandoned the notion that failure to comply with Miranda’s rules is itself a violation of the Constitution.

So if even the majority acknowledges that miranda isn't a constitution requirement, could you kindly explain to me why congress does not have the power to overrule it.


If you acknowledge the basic rights that the Gideon, Escobedo, and Miranda decisions enumerated, can you also acknowledge the abuse of police powers that brought about those decisions? Miranda isn't the end of the civilized world. It doesn't even register as a bad idea. It's a limitation on overly-agressive police practices and a affirmation that everyone is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Those are the tenents of our legal system, aren't they? Innocent until proven guilty.....

So according to this, the meaning of the constitution changes with social conditions? Thats exactly what this says. Police brutality is getting bad so that means the 5th/6th amendments now require this extra measure. If gun crime ever gets bad enough does that mean the 2nd can shrink?

It would take me too long to count the number of fallacies in this paragraph so I will simply leave you with this...

Today’s judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops’ Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today’s decision does not pretend that it is–and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people’s representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision–especially a celebrated decision–that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.

STAGE 2
11-22-2007, 1:05 AM
Look. The Constitution and every single founding father document is a philosophy that has been applied into law. Overall, it's a pretty damn good thing that is worth keeping. So far your argument is unjustified merely because you are arguing over whether or not something was written in the Constitution. Your whole argument of "it's not in the Constitution" has no solid basis. If the Constitution did say that "the people upon arrest must be informed of their rights" you wouldn't have a problem with it. Do you see the problem?

I don't see the problem because what you wrote makes absolutely no sense. When arrested I don't have to say anything because the constitution states that I have a right not to incriminate myself. I don't have to take the stand at my trial for the same reason. If I'm destitute I get to have counsel because the constitution mandates it. If I'm denied any of these things, then my rights have been violated as per the constitution.

If a cop doesn't mirandize someone, what rights have been violated. Does not being mirandized stop someone from remaining silent? Does it stop someone from requesting counsel? I don't think so.

Miranda isn't required by the constitution and should not have been applied to the states. As I illustrated above, even SCOTUS admits that miranda isn't a constitutional right/principle. It was a framework created by judicial fiat. Congress tried to overturn miranda (shocking I know) and the court wouldn't let them do it. This is just as bad as if tomorrow SCOTUS read the 2nd amendment out of the constitution.

You see, when you piss on the constitution, it doesn't matter on which part. Destruction to one part of damages it in its entirety.



For the original issue, I disagree with police going house to house merely because they think kids might be getting ahold of their parents' guns. If there is some solid evidence for it I have no problem because there is some substantiation there.

So from a legal perspective, why exactly can't the police go door to door and ask to search?

M. Sage
11-22-2007, 8:20 AM
So from a legal perspective, why exactly can't the police go door to door and ask to search?

Legally, there's nothing stopping them. I could agree that it's questionable ethically.

FortCourageArmory
11-22-2007, 8:58 AM
Since the 60's Miranda has become part of our national culture. Anyone who's ever seen a movie or turned on a TV can read you a butchered version of it from memory. That is beyond dispute. Being a part of "national culture" however means diddly squat with respect to law or the constitution.

Likewise, your attachment to Wainwright and Escobedo is just as useless. Sure these cases provided (or enumerated) the right for everyone to have an attorney, and have an attorney be present during questioning, but the thing is that I can open my handy dandy pocket constitution and flip to the page where it says I'm entitled to counsel. Hence these decisions have a constitutional basis. In other words, these cases fleshed out the details of a tangible right by answering the question of who the 6th applied to and how early does the right to counsel exist.

Miranda has no such basis. There is nothing in the constitution that one can use as a starting point. Sure the Rehnquist court affirmed Miranda. There have been plenty of horrible precedents upheld for no other reason than they have become "settled law" simply because they are old.

But I'm glad you bring up that case. Since some of you here think I'm senile I encourage you to read Scalia's dissent, specifically the parts where he points out the court's hypocracy citing to seeveral cases where the court had declined to exclude evidence even though the suspect had not been mirandized. If miranda is in fact required by the constitution, then there is no circumstance in which it could not be given and a confession still used as evidence. Since this isn't the case than miranda must not be a constitutional requirement.

Of course this would mean that miranda is simply a judicially imposed safeguard subject to change by an act of congress. The halfassed reasoning the court gave is precisely because they have no constitutional foundation to stand on. Hence why Scalia wrote...

For these reasons, and others more than adequately developed in the Miranda dissents and in the subsequent works of the decision’s many critics, any conclusion that a violation of the Miranda rules necessarily amounts to a violation of the privilege against compelled self-incrimination can claim no support in history, precedent, or common sense, and as a result would at least presumptively be worth reconsidering even at this late date. But that is unnecessary, since the Court has (thankfully) long since abandoned the notion that failure to comply with Miranda’s rules is itself a violation of the Constitution.

So if even the majority acknowledges that miranda isn't a constitution requirement, could you kindly explain to me why congress does not have the power to overrule it.




So according to this, the meaning of the constitution changes with social conditions? Thats exactly what this says. Police brutality is getting bad so that means the 5th/6th amendments now require this extra measure. If gun crime ever gets bad enough does that mean the 2nd can shrink?

It would take me too long to count the number of fallacies in this paragraph so I will simply leave you with this...

Today’s judgment converts Miranda from a milestone of judicial overreaching into the very Cheops’ Pyramid (or perhaps the Sphinx would be a better analogue) of judicial arrogance. In imposing its Court-made code upon the States, the original opinion at least asserted that it was demanded by the Constitution. Today’s decision does not pretend that it is–and yet still asserts the right to impose it against the will of the people’s representatives in Congress. Far from believing that stare decisis compels this result, I believe we cannot allow to remain on the books even a celebrated decision–especially a celebrated decision–that has come to stand for the proposition that the Supreme Court has power to impose extraconstitutional constraints upon Congress and the States. This is not the system that was established by the Framers, or that would be established by any sane supporter of government by the people.


I prepared a pretty lengthy response, but then I realized that I'm trying to teach the pig to sing. Stage 2 will never get it and I have run out of desire to try. So, I sit here in my happy home amonst my family and thank my God that Stage 2 is in no position to effect change in regards to this decision. His views on this are truly frightening (and bordering on the absurd). I relinquish the floor to his verbal feet stamping and holding of his breath. I'm out.

SemiAutoSam
11-22-2007, 9:12 AM
Thank you

You said that with a lot more tact and simplicity than I would have.

I have followed this thread as well and seen the strange mentality that has been presented here.

I only have this to add I see nothing wrong with having Government follow the limits of the constitution but then also am OK with things that are enacted that are actually helpful to American Citizens to maintain their liberties.

And Miranda is just that from my perspective.

I prepared a pretty lengthy response, but then I realized that I'm trying to teach the pig to sing. Stage 2 will never get it and I have run out of desire to try. So, I sit here in my happy home amongst my family and thank my God that Stage 2 is in no position to effect change in regards to this decision. His views on this are truly frightening (and bordering on the absurd). I relinquish the floor to his verbal feet stamping and holding of his breath. I'm out.

Bizcuits
11-22-2007, 10:45 AM
I said <illegal> guns bcause the parents may not know giving thier kids a gun is ok.....or even if they do--> this gives them ready access to the rest of the house arguably under the common access area rules.

Not true.

The best thing about a consent search for someone agreeing to one. They end when you say they end. If you give them consent to search your kids room and along the way they start snooping and you feel uncomfortable, then you end it there. They leave. If they refuse to leave, you've entered another field and you then can begin to prosecute them for illegal behavior.

The worst thing about a consent search for a cop. They end when the person wants. So if during the search someone remembers, they had a crack pipe under the seat of the car, you can say, "Uh I don't feel comfortable, stop." If after this the cop does not stop, the search is then illegal and anything they found can't be held against you in court.

Also if your a parent with tons of illegal or questionable items around your house, then you'd likely have common sense not to consent and if you do consent. Good! You just won a Darwin award.

STAGE 2
11-22-2007, 7:33 PM
I prepared a pretty lengthy response, but then I realized that I'm trying to teach the pig to sing. Stage 2 will never get it and I have run out of desire to try. So, I sit here in my happy home amonst my family and thank my God that Stage 2 is in no position to effect change in regards to this decision. His views on this are truly frightening (and bordering on the absurd). I relinquish the floor to his verbal feet stamping and holding of his breath. I'm out.

Sorry, you don't get to cop out that easy. Answer my simple question. Since the supreme court has itself acknowledged that miranda isn't required by the constitution, then why doesn't congress have the power to overrule it.

As far as being able to effectuate change, occupying a federal bench is not outside the realm of possiblities. Which brings me to my next point, as someone who does this for a living you'll forgive me if I don't exactly take your opinion on my perspective to heart. Everyone with google and a chip on their shoulder is the next Clarence Darrow... that is until someone like me asks for some bonafides.

So, you can sit there and duck my questions and throw around words like "police state" and "truly frightening" which will no doubt encourage the villagers to trade critical thinking for torches and pitchforks. Or we can actually discuss this with the constitution and case law. I'll leave the choice up to you.


Thank you

You said that with a lot more tact and simplicity than I would have.

I have followed this thread as well and seen the strange mentality that has been presented here.


Well if having a strange mentality places me in the same camp as Antonin Scalia, possibly the most brilliant jurist of our time, then I'll happily accept that.

What bothers me is that you folks are perfectly acceptable with changing the constitution on a whim to suit your needs. Strange mentality indeed.

N6ATF
11-23-2007, 12:11 AM
It's time to put DOWN your rulers.

Dr. Peter Venkman
11-23-2007, 2:30 AM
What bothers me is that you folks are perfectly acceptable with changing the constitution on a whim to suit your needs. Strange mentality indeed.

The Constitution is the not the end-all, be-all thing that you seem to think it is. If that was the case we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

KenpoProfessor
11-23-2007, 4:34 AM
The Constitution is the not the end-all, be-all thing that you seem to think it is. If that was the case we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

You're sadly mistaken, the Constitution is the end all, be all that we think it is, it's just not how the court's interpret the supreme law of the land. Those judges who think the constitution is a living document is why we have conversations like this. And it's people like yourself who perpetuate the myth with statements like the one you've made here. Haven't you even been reading this thread?

Have a great gun carryin' Kenpo day

Clyde

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 12:56 PM
Not true.

The best thing about a consent search for someone agreeing to one. They end when you say they end. If you give them consent to search your kids room and along the way they start snooping and you feel uncomfortable, then you end it there. They leave. If they refuse to leave, you've entered another field and you then can begin to prosecute them for illegal behavior.

The worst thing about a consent search for a cop. They end when the person wants. So if during the search someone remembers, they had a crack pipe under the seat of the car, you can say, "Uh I don't feel comfortable, stop." If after this the cop does not stop, the search is then illegal and anything they found can't be held against you in court.

Also if your a parent with tons of illegal or questionable items around your house, then you'd likely have common sense not to consent and if you do consent. Good! You just won a Darwin award.

All well said and in a perfect world that'd work...but we ARE talking about the Parents of potential gang bangers and thugs...chances are they already DONT know thier rights- So why would an EXTENSION of those rights be known?????????

While you or I know when to say when....a lot of the general public does not and do believe the drivel of Cop's psyonics "Well if you have nothing to hide then you should let us search". Regardless of whether someone has something to hide...they ALL have something to PROTECT...and in its least/base form protect the right to NOT be hassled by the cops without probable cause.

Its the camels nose into the tent with a racket like this; nothing good can come from it...if an actuall illegal gun IS siezed-- So what, the kid gets off scott free and nothin is preventing him from going and getting another either by buying it or snatching one.

If the cops get a tip; have them follow established practice and do the FULL deed. Do a full investigation until there is actual probable cause and then go get the kid and the gun and send 'em to the pokie or remediation or counseling or whatever your hearts' desire; just dont circumvent the constitution with this nonsense of an "innocent question" of "may I search" when it is not some innocent question..................

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 1:15 PM
The Constitution is the not the end-all, be-all thing that you seem to think it is. If that was the case we wouldn't be having this debate right now.

Well it seems I've found where our disagreement lies. If the constitution is not the end all of our laws and system of government, the pray tell what is.

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 1:45 PM
Well it seems I've found where our disagreement lies. If the constitution is not the end all of our laws and system of government, the pray tell what is.


the constitution was premised on Natural Law and Human law/Rights...... and quite a few surmise as an extension of "God's Law" as percieved by the predominat Religon of the time/place...Christianity as told by Protestantism

Bizcuits
11-23-2007, 2:23 PM
All well said and in a perfect world that'd work...but we ARE talking about the Parents of potential gang bangers and thugs... chances are they already DONT know thier rights- So why would an EXTENSION of those rights be known?????????

These same bad people won't be consenting to the search. The people who will be consenting to the search are decent parents, who may not be in touch with their child and when the police present there evidence / information for the belief of the childs possible endangerment, the parents will make a judgement then.

Your making a paranoid ideal that the LEO's assigned to this task are going to try and force their way into every single home they contact.

If someone isn't concerned in knowing their rights, then it is their own fault. You don't get out of a speeding ticket by saying, "I didn't see the sign." You don't get away with murder by saying, "I didn't know killing someone was against the law."

Why should I concern myself with the troubles stupid and ignorant people bring onto themselves. It is called Darwin...

While you or I know when to say when....a lot of the general public does not and do believe the drivel of Cop's psyonics "Well if you have nothing to hide then you should let us search". Regardless of whether someone has something to hide...they ALL have something to PROTECT...and in its least/base form protect the right to NOT be hassled by the cops without probable cause.

Again your assuming the cops are coming for the parents. Missing the whole focus of the program. Which is to help troubled youths. If someone has something to protect and they care about it enough, they won't let the LEO's in or they will be smart enough to ask thorough questions.

You seem to under estimate the respect Americans have for their rights. This isn't a TV show, if you watch real LEO in action you will be surprised to see how many people know their rights and if they don't have quick they are to ask about them.

If the parents are Gang Bangers and thugs as you put it. Trust me, they know their basic rights. As they've likely been through the system before and have spoken to a court appointed lawyer.

Its the camels nose into the tent with a racket like this; nothing good can come from it...if an actuall illegal gun IS siezed-- So what, the kid gets off scott free and nothin is preventing him from going and getting another either by buying it or snatching one.

The illegal gun is off the streets. The cops now have someone to tail / follow and further investigate behind the curtains. They my also be able to convince the kid to turn over who gave him the gun, so they can lead to further investigations against the real problem. "The Dealers".

Also gives the parents the wake up call they may need to finally stop ignoring the kid and become parents and fix the solution. In the event it is a columbine style kid, they can get him into a thrapists office and get him home schooled.

If the cops get a tip; have them follow established practice and do the FULL deed. Do a full investigation until there is actual probable cause and then go get the kid and the gun and send 'em to the pokie or remediation or counseling or whatever your hearts' desire; just dont circumvent the constitution with this nonsense of an "innocent question" of "may I search" when it is not some innocent question..................

I love how you continue to fall back onto the constitution... This has nothing to do with the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution preventing a Law Enforcement Officer from asking you to do things.

Anyone can ask you to do something. It's weather your ignorant or stupid enough to agree. It is called consent.

These are not illegal, no knock searchs by jack booted sturm trooper thugs.

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 2:29 PM
the constitution was premised on Natural Law and Human law/Rights...... and quite a few surmise as an extension of "God's Law" as percieved by the predominat Religon of the time/place...Christianity as told by Protestantism

While I agree, that really doesn't have anything to do with this dicsussion. When you reduce things down to writing and agree on a system, then all of the stuff floating aound in the ether really doesn't matter.

You see the whole point of writing things down is so that everyone can come to a consensus, and that someone won't just come along and change things on a whim.

I can find people that will argue they have a natural right to smoke crack, have sex in public, beat their wife, go for a walk in the nude, ignore traffic laws etc. Thats all well and good, but in deciding to be governed we all abdicated some of our rights in turn for the benefits the system provides.

So, as a result, until the US government ceases to exist, the constitution is the end of the line.

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 2:57 PM
These same bad people won't be consenting to the search. The people who will be consenting to the search are decent parents, who may not be in touch with their child .


Now thats an oxymoron; Good parents dont tend to raise hoodlums (hey...it CAn happen, but not usually) so back to the good parenting we go and NOT needing the cops.

Your making a paranoid ideal that the LEO's assigned to this task are going to try and force their way into every single home they contact.. Parionoid? No. But without bashing on GOOD cops- there are a few bad ones and who is gonna know in this situation?

If someone isn't concerned in knowing their rights, then it is their own fault. You don't get out of a speeding ticket by saying, "I didn't see the sign." You don't get away with murder by saying, "I didn't know killing someone was against the law." . No argument here:D

Why should I concern myself with the troubles stupid and ignorant people bring onto themselves. It is called Darwin.... Nice try, but then why are you HERE? This is a place to dicsuss ideas and come to a consensus and SHARE INFORMATION. So much for looking out for your fellow man hugh?


Again your assuming the cops are coming for the parents. Missing the whole focus of the program. Which is to help troubled youths. If someone has something to protect and they care about it enough, they won't let the LEO's in or they will be smart enough to ask thorough questions.. Oh I FULLY understand the FOCUS of the program...its just too easy with this program for it to loose its very focus. But back to assuming, this time for you...that the parents will be "smart enough" to know how to ask poignent questions (and cops MAY lie) so if they're dumb enough to NOT ask thier kids about thier lives and not smart enough to ask the cops about laws in which the cops are under NO legal obligation to tell you the truth.... this program is a farce.

You seem to under estimate the respect Americans have for their rights. This isn't a TV show, if you watch real LEO in action you will be surprised to see how many people know their rights and if they don't have quick they are to ask about them. . Oh, Americans love thier rights...until they are offended- hence Gun control and PC. I worked side by side with LEO on a near daily basis for nearly 8 years; MY experience with what you just said is that unfortunately you have NO idea about hat you're talking about......

If the parents are Gang Bangers and thugs as you put it. Trust me, they know their basic rights. As they've likely been through the system before and have spoken to a court appointed lawyer.. And I get grief for assuming? A lotta assumptions right there:cool:



The illegal gun is off the streets. The cops now have someone to tail / follow and further investigate behind the curtains. They my also be able to convince the kid to turn over who gave him the gun, so they can lead to further investigations against the real problem. "The Dealers"..

MY point proven then. It is a backdoor to later obtain probable cause THEY DIDN'T HAVE IN THE FIRST PLACE. But HOW are they to convince him when he isn't "UP" on any charges if this 'program' remains true? Its a nice farce to believe he'll 'give up the goods' when they have NOTHING on him under this program.

Also gives the parents the wake up call they may need to finally stop ignoring the kid and become parents and fix the solution. In the event it is a columbine style kid, they can get him into a thrapists office and get him home schooled.. Oh home schooled kids tend to be more wacked then well adjusted blathering publically educated idiots...so I aint biting that one. The wake up call to the parents I agree with but that could come about through DIFFERENT routes rather than a run-around the constitional principles.....



I love how you continue to fall back onto the constitution... This has nothing to do with the constitution. There is nothing in the constitution preventing a Law Enforcement Officer from asking you to do things.

Anyone can ask you to do something. It's weather your ignorant or stupid enough to agree. It is called consent.

These are not illegal, no knock searchs by jack booted sturm trooper thugs.

Thank you; proved my point again; what you've said is completely NOT logical. If it has nothing to do with the constitution then where does "consent" come from? But there ARE plenty of laws preventing cops from asking you to do ILLEGAL things as well as plenty of laws that citizens must obey a lwful command.

Who said they were illegal? I find them repugnant and surfing the surface of Constitutionality. You are right they are not illegal...but then again they aint a good thing, a moral thing, a decent thing, a nice thing, or anything that is gonna result in reducing crime.....

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 3:06 PM
While I agree, that really doesn't have anything to do with this dicsussion. When you reduce things down to writing and agree on a system, then all of the stuff floating aound in the ether really doesn't matter. . and we've ALlL agreed on a system. And when there is a question about Fed vs state vs individual it is SUPPOSED to be the right of the individual NOT to get trampled.

You see the whole point of writing things down is so that everyone can come to a consensus, and that someone won't just come along and change things on a whim. . EXACTLY my point...there is plenty of case law and procedure for investigations and probable cause...this program stinks of running just outside established law. ALL done in the name of public safety and "for the children" and we all know that kind of BS logic from a mile away.

I can find people that will argue they have a natural right to smoke crack, have sex in public, beat their wife, go for a walk in the nude, ignore traffic laws etc. Thats all well and good, but in deciding to be governed we all abdicated some of our rights in turn for the benefits the system provides.. exactly, and the system provides a legal means for cops to do thier job...this program aint part of that established system, consensus, and whatnot. So while I'm NOT going to get into some esoteric disscussion of "True Freedom" the abjucation of rights for government necissity is a crock.

So, as a result, until the US government ceases to exist, the constitution is the end of the line. Unofrtunately you are COMPLETELY WRONG. The constitution is NOT the end of the line...THE PEOPLE ARE. They are the ones that give/gave it its authority and may retract that authority (as a whole) when and if it is necessary...every founding father believed that and so did nearly every president down to Lincoln..."That when a government becomes destructive to these ends {human rights} is is THE RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a new government......."

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 3:57 PM
and we've ALlL agreed on a system. And when there is a question about Fed vs state vs individual it is SUPPOSED to be the right of the individual NOT to get trampled.

Sorry. That sounds great on a bunpersticker, but legally it has no significance.


EXACTLY my point...there is plenty of case law and procedure for investigations and probable cause...this program stinks of running just outside established law. ALL done in the name of public safety and "for the children" and we all know that kind of BS logic from a mile away.

Ok. Please cite to me the case where it says police cannot ask people to consent to a search. Whether the logic of the program is good, whether the program is effective, or whether its a terrible idea all together has no bearing on whether its within the authority of the police to perform.


exactly, and the system provides a legal means for cops to do thier job...this program aint part of that established system, consensus, and whatnot. So while I'm NOT going to get into some esoteric disscussion of "True Freedom" the abjucation of rights for government necissity is a crock.

So once again, show me where it says its illegal for police to ask for consent to search.



Unofrtunately you are COMPLETELY WRONG. The constitution is NOT the end of the line...THE PEOPLE ARE. They are the ones that give/gave it its authority and may retract that authority (as a whole) when and if it is necessary...every founding father believed that and so did nearly every president down to Lincoln..."That when a government becomes destructive to these ends {human rights} is is THE RIGHT of the people to alter or abolish it and institute a new government......."

And the people agreeed to change the constitution through a specific process, not halfassed and willy nilly or by judicial fiat.

Look, I don't have any problem with you thinking this is a bad idea. I agree with you wholeheartedly on that point. However there is a difference between thinking its a bad idea and saying the police don't have the authority to do this.

If we expect them to respect our rights, then we need to defer to their authority where legitimate.

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 4:33 PM
Sorry. That sounds great on a bunpersticker, but legally it has no significance.

Stage...how is it you dont know this stuff?
10th Amendment
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

or how about the Preamble that set it all off.....


We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#DOMTRAN), provide for the common defence (http://www.usconstitution.net/constmiss.html), promote the general Welfare (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#WELFARE), and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#POSTERITY), do ordain (http://www.usconstitution.net/glossary.html#ORDAIN) and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.


You're talking in circles man. It IS a bad idea........and that is enough for me. I'm to the point of sidin' with (seriously--without the negativity)

I prepared a pretty lengthy response, but then I realized .....will never get it and I have run out of desire to try. So, I sit here in my happy home amonst my family and thank my God that Stage 2 is in no position to effect change in regards to this decision. His views on this are truly frightening (and bordering on the absurd). I relinquish the floor to his verbal feet stamping and holding of his breath. I'm out.

Have at it stage. I'm done, consistant facts have been supplied and you dont seem to wanna listen to reason or logic, there are better options other than this program.... you're arguing for the slide towards a police state.......... if thats what you want then so be it. I want no part of creeping incrementalism. If you cant see that this is exactly what it is then i dont know what will ever convince you.....

Again, respectfully said as they are your opinions & you're free to have them...though I will conclusely say I will forever disagree with them.

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 4:51 PM
Stage...how is it you dont know this stuff?
10th Amendment

The tenth amendment doesn't confer some magical right for police not to do their jobs or for people to not be asked their consent.

Quite the contrary the fact that police are asking demonstrates the peoples rights are being respected.

Have at it stage. I'm done, consistant facts have been supplied and you dont seem to wanna listen to reason or logic, there are better options other than this program.... you're arguing for the slide towards a police state.......... if thats what you want then so be it. I want no part of creeping incrementalism. If you cant see that this is exactly what it is then i dont know what will ever convince you.....

So I guess I'll add you to the list of people who refuse to answer direct questions. You and others sit there and say that facts have been supplied, but I sure haven't seen any. What I have seen is people argue that there are other things than the constitution to be considered or that we live in a police state, or a host of other things that have no bearing on the law. Of course this it completely absurd since the same people that claim I'm arguing for a police state are the same folks that have advocated that we as a nation were better off 50+ years ago than we are today.

So to cut through all the fluff I'll ask again. Show me the case that says police can't ask for someone's consent to search. Show me where it says the judiciary can overrule an act of congress that is consistent with the constitution

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 5:38 PM
This was stated--

Originally Posted by metalhead357 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=847502#post847502)
and we've ALlL agreed on a system. And when there is a question about Fed vs state vs individual it is SUPPOSED to be the right of the individual NOT to get trampled.


and this is what you stated to it

Originally Posted by STAGE 2 http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?p=847546#post847546)
Sorry. That sounds great on a bunpersticker, but legally it has no significance to which this was offered

10th Amendment
Quote:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


to which you respond-

The tenth amendment doesn't confer some magical right for police not to do their jobs or for people to not be asked their consent.

Which is specifically NOT what you asked, nor to what I answered. The topic was (for that moment) on individual rights- not about cops. You ask direct questions and I have given direct reponses but with the slight or hand or change of subject and focus- you've dismissed pretty much what everyone HAS answered you and have not seen to answer thier statements directly.


Quite the contrary the fact that police are asking demonstrates the peoples rights are being respected. You run with that m'kay...lettme know whatcha think when you or a loved one is being "questioned" by a less than honest cop.......



So I guess I'll add you to the list of people who refuse to answer direct questions. You and others sit there and say that facts have been supplied, but I sure haven't seen any. What I have seen is people argue that there are other things than the constitution to be considered or that we live in a police state, or a host of other things that have no bearing on the law. Of course this it completely absurd since the same people that claim I'm arguing for a police state are the same folks that have advocated that we as a nation were better off 50+ years ago than we are today. Of course you havent seen any facts, you're refusing to stay on a single subject within the theme; you ask for A and you're given A but then you state it doent apply to B when that is not what you asked for.

In SOME regards we ARE better off now than 50 years ago..... but not in ALL regards. but all that is a change of topic yet again to divest the issue at hand. So nice try for the divergence but back to the case(s0 at hand.

So to cut through all the fluff I'll ask again. Show me the case that says police can't ask for someone's consent to search. Show me where it says the judiciary can overrule an act of congress that is consistent with the constitution

Show ME a case where an unlawful stop has been made and YOU will have your proof. Show me where a unlawful cop has 'fudged' on the procedures and you'll have yet another. Show me where a cop had ANY legal justification to legally stop someone NOT a suspect in anything(random....not profiled) on the street for NO probable cause and strike up a conversation JUST SO they can find some probable cause and then you will have your proof that you so desire. It wouldn't hold in a court of law.

So again Stage...... if you wish to discuss things we shall, but looking back over the posts you've not done much of anything but keep saying this is essentially a good program,that its not UN-constitutional, and that you're for it. Nearly everyone here has said its a BAD proram, that it skirts being constitional (until it see some court room....), and that we are all AGAINST it. So it appears we are at an impass............. you're not going to change anyone's mind on the matter here...and it sounds like your mind is made up too; so, so be it.

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 6:19 PM
Which is specifically NOT what you asked, nor to what I answered. The topic was (for that moment) on individual rights- not about cops. You ask direct questions and I have given direct reponses but with the slight or hand or change of subject and focus- you've dismissed pretty much what everyone HAS answered you and have not seen to answer thier statements directly.

No dice. You said that when its the fed vs the state vs the individual its the right of the individual not to get trampled. As far as I know "trampled" isn't a term of art used anywhere in any case or statute. Rather, its used to appeal to emotion (as it was here) and to divert attention from what the law actually says.

In some cases when its a matter of the individual vs the govt, its the individual that is deserving of protection. In other cases, its the individual that is overstepping their bounds. We know the difference because we can defer to the constitution to tell us the difference.

The 10th amendment doesn't change any of this. There is not, nor has there ever been a right not to be asked a question. I can walk up to you and ask you anything I want. So can a cop. You may not like it, but that doesn't change the facts.



You run with that m'kay...lettme know whatcha think when you or a loved one is being "questioned" by a less than honest cop.......

Yet another fallacy. A persons position shouldn't change because of who is being questioned. I've had run ins with several cops who were dying to get me to consent to a search of my car. One even went so far as to try the small talk approach with saying, "whatcha got under the hood... can I look". Yet by some stroke of magic :rolleyes: even a highschooler with a hot rod managed to understand his rights. If I could handle myself back then, there isn't any reason why any adults can't as well.


Of course you havent seen any facts, you're refusing to stay on a single subject within the theme; you ask for A and you're given A but then you state it doent apply to B when that is not what you asked for.

Nope, you guys are dancing around this issue and you still haven't answered any of my questions.



Show ME a case where an unlawful stop has been made and YOU will have your proof. Show me where a unlawful cop has 'fudged' on the procedures and you'll have yet another. Show me where a cop had ANY legal justification to legally stop someone NOT a suspect in anything(random....not profiled) on the street for NO probable cause and strike up a conversation JUST SO they can find some probable cause and then you will have your proof that you so desire. It wouldn't hold in a court of law.

First, stop diverting the issue. Show me a case that says the police can't ask people to consent to a search.

Second, there isn't anything unlawful about this program. You can't insert your worst fears into something, hold it up and say "see, this is horrible". The program says police will be going door to door and asking folks questions about illegal guns and if they can search.

No matter how much you want to believe it, not every cop is a JBT. Thats simply not the case. In fact, not even a majority of police are JBT's. No doubt there are those that live to violate peoples rights, but by your logic, we simply shouldn't have police because these people exist.

Fortunately thats not how we do things. Laws and programs are judged on their face, and not on how extreme and perverted they can be abused. As such, there isn't anything wrong about police going door to door asking questions.



So again Stage...... if you wish to discuss things we shall, but looking back over the posts you've not done much of anything but keep saying this is essentially a good program,that its not UN-constitutional, and that you're for it. Nearly everyone here has said its a BAD proram, that it skirts being constitional (until it see some court room....), and that we are all AGAINST it. So it appears we are at an impass............. you're not going to change anyone's mind on the matter here...and it sounds like your mind is made up too; so, so be it.

See, heres the problem. Either you and others are being lazy and not actually reading what I've been writing, or you're simply ignoring it. This is the 3rd time I've said personally I think the program is stupid and useless. However stupid and useless isn't how we judge laws.

You see, what the Brady campaign does is that they get a bunch of like minded people together of which nearly every person thinks guns are a bad idea. They pick out the worst possible scenario and hold it up as the standard without any regard to actual fact. They make it clear that they are all against the 2nd amendment and try and pass laws regardless whether they are constitutional or not solely on the basis of what people think.

Congratulations, you've just done exactly what the Brady folks do. I'm beginning to understand why this nation is headed down the tubes.

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 7:21 PM
EDIT: long long diatribe edited out. There is no reasoning with you. Yep; I'm a brady buncher now...... ya' got all the buzz words in....






I'm done......

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 8:24 PM
EDIT: long long diatribe edited out. There is no reasoning with you. Yep; I'm a brady buncher now...... ya' got all the buzz words in....

I'm done......

Good. Maybe we can get someone in here who will use some citations or reference the constitution rather than hit all the anti-police buzzwords.

Anyone else want to show me where it says police can't ask someone to consent to a search?

Bueller?

FortCourageArmory
11-23-2007, 8:39 PM
Show me where it says the judiciary can overrule an act of congress that is consistent with the constitution

You may try looking in the U. S. Constitution. Article III, Section II:

The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority; to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls; to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction; to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party; to Controversies between two or more States; between a State and Citizens of another State; between Citizens of different States; between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.

In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury; and such Trial shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed; but when not committed within any State, the Trial shall be at such Place or Places as the Congress may by Law have directed.

For the Constitutionally-challenged, this says the court has jurisdiction over ALL laws passed in the United States. Jurisdiction would mean interpretive authority. An act (law) passed by Congress is subject to review by the federal court. Congress does have the ability to remove an issue from the court at it's discretion, but they don't seem to have ever exercised that ability. The Congress can pass a law that says all left-handed people must be imprisoned, but the court can overrule them in a hearbeat and invalidate that law.

And....for the uber Strict Constructionists out there.....do I have to remind you that the same Constituion that you insist must be taken verbatim, with no interpretation allowed, also contains provisions for denying women the vote and treating African-Americans as 2/5ths of a person.

SemiAutoSam
11-23-2007, 9:01 PM
You say that like its a bad thing. :rolleyes:

For the uber Strict Constructionists out there.....do I have to remind you that the same Constituion that you insist must be taken verbatim, with no interpretation allowed, also contains provisions for denying women the vote and treating African-Americans as 2/5ths of a person.

STAGE 2
11-23-2007, 9:56 PM
Finally something of substance.

You may try looking in the U. S. Constitution. Article III, Section II:...

For the Constitutionally-challenged, this says the court has jurisdiction over ALL laws passed in the United States.

Well, before we get to who is constitutionally challenged, lets take a look at the preceding section... you know, the one you didn't post.

Art III Sec 1

Section 1. The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good behaviour, and shall, at stated times, receive for their services, a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office.

Now lets read this with the 2nd paragraph of section 2.

In all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and those in which a state shall be party, the Supreme Court shall have original jurisdiction. In all the other cases before mentioned, the Supreme Court shall have appellate jurisdiction, both as to law and fact, with such exceptions, and under such regulations as the Congress shall make.

So what does reading those two passages mean boys and girls. Well, since congress has the power to create and destroy inferior courts (federal district and appellate courts) and can even expand or contract the appellate jurisdiction of the supreme court, it is NOT the case that federal courts or SCOTUS has jurisdiction over ALL laws in the united states. In fact, congress can do anything it wants as long as it doesn't attempt to alter the original jurisdiction of the supreme court.

What this means is that if there are things that congress can set outside the bounds of federal jurisdiction, and even increase or decrease the number of existing federal courts, then it goes without saying that the judiciary has no power under the constitution to invalidate a congressional act passed in compliance with the constitution.

Of course most all of you support this, even if you don't really know about it. Its the reason why congress was able to pass the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Now if a couple of Sarah Brady appointees some time down the road decided to invalidate this law because of people's "right" to be safe, I have no doubt all of you would be up in arms about it. Lets not make the same mistake on our end.



The Congress can pass a law that says all left-handed people must be imprisoned, but the court can overrule them in a hearbeat and invalidate that law.

But since that violates the constitution, the law is invalid. I can quote you line and verse. Can you show me where an officer asking for consent to search or not reading miranda is prohibited by the constitution.



And....for the uber Strict Constructionists out there.....do I have to remind you that the same Constituion that you insist must be taken verbatim, with no interpretation allowed, also contains provisions for denying women the vote and treating African-Americans as 2/5ths of a person.

Actually it was the 3/5th compromise, and it was repealed by the 13th amendment. Same goes for womens sufferage. So no, I don't have any problems with taking our constitution verbatim. The beautiful thing about taking things at face value is that problems are so glaringly easy to spot and they ususally get fixed as in your two examples.


You know, the dumbest thing about this who argument is that some simple logic lets us know the anwer to everything. Police can conduct a search only one of two ways. Either they are given consent, or they have a valid warrant. This is stone cold case law and has been long before most of us were born. If police can search when they are given consent, it goes without saying that they have the power to ask for it. If police couldn't ask to search, then no one could ever give their consent. It really that simple.

Of course if you don't believe me then were back to finding the case that says police can't ask for consent. Happy hunting.

FortCourageArmory
11-23-2007, 10:19 PM
If you will carefull READ what I posted, I refered to that preceding section. Specifically when I said:

Congress does have the ability to remove an issue from the court at it's discretion, but they don't seem to have ever exercised that ability.

Or maybe you missed that. But I digress. The court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional, not Congress. So your question(s) are baiting. Congress can't say, "Our act we passed is constitutional" when they do not have the power or authority to decide that. If they feel the court has made a monsterous error, then the Congress can remove that decision from the court's jurisdiction. If Congress can't or won't do such a thing, they are conceding the issue to the court's jurisdiction. Since you seem to want to go back to your misguided Miranda opinion, this will make it simple for you. The court handed down Miranda. Congress chose not to intervene and remove the issue from the court. The court's decision stood. There were checks and balances demonstrated and exercised. Miranda was passed and is now engrained on the national culture after 40 years (remember those were Chief Justice's Rehnquist's words). GET OVER IT.

You recognize that the Constitution can and has been amended and changed over the years. This is good. There is hope for you yet. What is still troubling is you continue to refuse to acknowledge that the judiciary has the authority to interpret and define the law contained within the Constitution. Your uber Strict Constructions, take-it-at-face-value-only viewpoint fails muster when you actually read the document in question. It specifically allows the judiciary to that which you say it can't do and provides for a check on that power by another branch. Or maybe you missed all that in U. S. Government class in school?

G17GUY
11-23-2007, 10:47 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TdPH-MDqtlY&feature=related

metalhead357
11-23-2007, 11:05 PM
Good. Maybe we can get someone in here who will use some citations or reference the constitution rather than hit all the anti-police buzzwords.

Anyone else want to show me where it says police can't ask someone to consent to a search?

Bueller?

Nice. Real nice. So...........to realize I did provide citations:cool: Get over yer'self buddy.

FortCourageArmory
11-23-2007, 11:06 PM
Hmmmm......sounds alot like the points already brought up here. The former DA defending this as a "safe streets" campaign to "get guns off the street because so many kids have been killed this year already". What a pantload!

Just the kinds of actions by over-reaching police that the 4th and 5th Amendments were designed to prohibit.

N6ATF
11-24-2007, 12:48 AM
Have the rulers been put down yet?

STAGE 2
11-24-2007, 7:57 AM
Or maybe you missed that. But I digress. The court is the final arbiter of what is constitutional, not Congress. So your question(s) are baiting. Congress can't say, "Our act we passed is constitutional" when they do not have the power or authority to decide that. If they feel the court has made a monsterous error, then the Congress can remove that decision from the court's jurisdiction. If Congress can't or won't do such a thing, they are conceding the issue to the court's jurisdiction. Since you seem to want to go back to your misguided Miranda opinion, this will make it simple for you. The court handed down Miranda. Congress chose not to intervene and remove the issue from the court. The court's decision stood. There were checks and balances demonstrated and exercised. Miranda was passed and is now engrained on the national culture after 40 years (remember those were Chief Justice's Rehnquist's words). GET OVER IT.

The court did hand down miranda. However two years later congress passed the Omnibus Crime Control Act of 1968, which, among other things, made reading someone their miranda rights optional, and only one of many factors to consider when determining if a confession was voluntary. So yes, congress did decide to address miranda. (Which brings me to another point. Doing away with miranda doesn't do away with determining whether a confession is voluntary or not. If the police beat a confession out of someone or do something else innappropriate its invalid whether they were read their rights or not. So lets not pretend that miranda is the only thing preventing police abouse cause its not)

Whats more, when returing to miranda in later cases such as Dickerson, the court ITSELF acknowledges that the constitution DOES NOT REQUIRE miranda. Its a judicially imposed framework. As a result, its not a matter of constitutionality. Congress has the power to change judicial frameworks through legislation.

This isn't a matter of the congress telling the judiciary that a law is constitutional. Its the judiciary telling the congress that the law they passed is constitutional but is going to be overruled anyways.

Thats the problem.


You recognize that the Constitution can and has been amended and changed over the years. This is good. There is hope for you yet. What is still troubling is you continue to refuse to acknowledge that the judiciary has the authority to interpret and define the law contained within the Constitution. Your uber Strict Constructions, take-it-at-face-value-only viewpoint fails muster when you actually read the document in question. It specifically allows the judiciary to that which you say it can't do and provides for a check on that power by another branch. Or maybe you missed all that in U. S. Government class in school?

I didn't miss anything. However I question your education if you are going to sit there and tell me the constitution says the judiciary has the authority to rule on the constitutionality of laws or "check" any of the other branches. Read through it again and educate all of us where the constitution talks at all about judicial review.

Interpreting what a law says, and expanding on what is already written there are two totally different things. Its one thing to say that that the right to counsel is invoked at the interrogation stage because there is general right to counsel. Its a whole different ball of wax to say, for example, that there is a right to privacy. That is simply a fabrication.

Miranda is a fabrication. The court eventually had the intellectual honesty to admit it. Unfortunately, they haven't been honest enough to put aside their egos and repeal it.

Oh, and I'm still waiting to see where it is that says police can't ask for consent.

STAGE 2
11-24-2007, 7:59 AM
Nice. Real nice. So...........to realize I did provide citations:cool: Get over yer'self buddy.

No you didn't. Cite me the case that says police cant ask for consent to search. If its so glaringly obvious then this should be an easy question to answer.


Just the kinds of actions by over-reaching police that the 4th and 5th Amendments were designed to prohibit.

Same to you. I'd like to see something that says asking for consent is overreaching.

FortCourageArmory
11-24-2007, 9:32 AM
OK, I give up. Silly me for feeding a troll. Guess there's a bridge somewhere that's needs a new tenant.

Nothing in common sense, historical precedent, or case law will sway you. So, I release you to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and say "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" whenever something you don't like to hear rears it's ugly head. Go ahead and even feel superior to the rest of us because you "beat" us.

Definitely out here......

STAGE 2
11-24-2007, 2:38 PM
Nothing in common sense, historical precedent, or case law will sway you. So, I release you to continue to stick your fingers in your ears and say "BLAH, BLAH, BLAH" whenever something you don't like to hear rears it's ugly head. Go ahead and even feel superior to the rest of us because you "beat" us.

Definitely out here......

If anyone is sticking their fingers in their ears its you. I've asked a simple question all along, and the only thing everyone wants to do is not answer it.

You can go ahead and call me a troll or any other name if it makes you feel better. The bottom line is that you can't point me to any case that prohibits police for asking people to consent to a search. You can't show me anything in the constitution either.

And as for common sense, I already explained that too. If consent is one of the ways police can execute a lawful search, then it is beyond argument that they have the right to ask. Someone can't give consent if they aren't asked.

But none of this matters to you because anything the police do is bad, regardless of what the constitution says. You simply can't get beyond this.
Regardless, I'll put my LL.M. and legal analysis up against yours. You do have one of those don't you?

M. Sage
11-24-2007, 2:40 PM
Riiiiight... so, I guess we're done here.