RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS

RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 1:08:42 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Where is the freakin ACLU? Right here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/county-los-angeles-v-angel-mendez I don't know why the NRA would be involved. Nobody said Mendez couldn't have a BB gun. The NRA continually harps on our 2nd amend. rights are required...to defend our homes and family. That BB gun cost him his leg and $1,000's in medical and legal fees and afforded him no protection at all. Yes the NRA harps on the 2nd Amendment just about as much as the ACLU harps on the 1st Amendment. That's what they do. Whatever Mendez's BB gun cost him, nobody said he couldn't have it. So why would the NRA be interested? Well I think it rather obvious on the very justification for the power reserved in each amend. The 1st for freedom of the press and religion, the 2nd as justified at least in part by the NRA, for the protection of family and home. In this case and due directly to the over-empowered police, their no knock warning and lack of a warrant, afforded the defendant any protection even with a regular rifle, let alone a BB gun and that's the overriding principal in NRA's argument. In fact, one could argue that with say hunting rifle even legally permitted, might have cost defendant his life. They are lucky to be alive anyway. This renders one NRA current justification as meaningless given that defendant...didn't stand a chance. I knew you'd get to the tin foil hats eventually.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 1:15:31 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML You and your pregnant lady are napping in a shack you have been occupying with permission of the owner out back behind the main house. There are evident signs that the shack is occupied. Two strangers crash through your door with guns in their hands without knocking or identifying themselves. You reach for a BB gun next to your bedside. The intruders shoot your asses. After you have your leg amputated in hospital you discover the intruders were LA County Sheriff deputies searching on a tip for a wanted felon. Fuck! You sue. The Ninth Circuit Court awards you a couple of $mil. You and your lady get married. The County appeals to the Supreme Court . . L.A. County v. Mendez The Supreme Court vacates the Circuit Court Order and remands the case back to the 9th Circuit. The Court ruled 8-0 in favor of the County so screw you. Yeah, your 4th Amendment rights were raped: no warrant, no knock, no identification. Yeah, the intruding cops provoked you to reach for your BB gun. BUT, the provocation does not waive the cops right to shoot when they feared for their lives. There is no provocation exception to police immunity in the 4th Amendment. Soooo . . . booby, your gun does not always protect your castle. Where is the NRA when you need them? Where is the freakin ACLU? Where is the outrage? Cops can break into your home without warrant, knocking, or identifying and kill you with impunity if you draw your gun. Court gave the cops a license to kill imo. Commentary on the Facts Justice Alito's Opinion Huh? You leave out the most important point. Did the cops properly identify themselves? That would be the only basis for a legitimate lawsuit. Other than that it is that having a bb gun (or other weapon) doesn;t assure you of safty you shouldn't have one. Problem is not having a weapon sure doesn't assure your safety. This isn't just at you by any means but this entire thread ignores reality. The reality is no matter defendants 2nd amend. rights and the distinct inability for [him] to truly defend his family and home with any gun, they are both...lucky to be alive. Prove they are safe when defenseless. Nobody says that being armed is a gaurantee against harm.

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 1:16:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch That was all discussed in the links VML provided and not disputed by either the County or Mendez. The only thing that actually looked a little contrived to me was Mendez claim that he was only picking up the BB gun and pointing at the officer as an effort to make his rising from a futon easier, it was in his way from getting up.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 1:18:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch Lack of identification and lack of uniforms are the only basis for the lawsuit. I would also like to find out why they were turned in.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 2:12:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch Lack of identification and lack of uniforms are the only basis for the lawsuit. I would also like to find out why they were turned in. Uh, maybe because they had to take the severely wounded victims to the hospital????? Lack of warrant doesn't bother your constitutional sensibilities?

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 2:20:08 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 2:54:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch Lack of identification and lack of uniforms are the only basis for the lawsuit. I would also like to find out why they were turned in. Uh, maybe because they had to take the severely wounded victims to the hospital????? Lack of warrant doesn't bother your constitutional sensibilities? Not the police, they were told that the person they had a warrent for was there. Who told them that and why? You are distorting my position as usual. You ought to be able to tell that the only grounds for going after the police would be if they violated protocall.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 2:57:27 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune. Of course the uniforms didn't give any indication of who they were.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 8:18:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch Lack of identification and lack of uniforms are the only basis for the lawsuit. I would also like to find out why they were turned in. Uh, maybe because they had to take the severely wounded victims to the hospital????? Lack of warrant doesn't bother your constitutional sensibilities? Not the police, they were told that the person they had a warrent for was there. Who told them that and why? You are distorting my position as usual. You ought to be able to tell that the only grounds for going after the police would be if they violated protocall. Again you are fabricating details. From the link I provided: two sheriff’s deputies opened the door of an occupied shack without a warrant and without knocking or announcing.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 8:22:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune. Of course the uniforms didn't give any indication of who they were. Uniforms have been used by thieves. Mendez was awakened from a nap. Did you even read my concerns. What kind of answer is it? Uniforms?

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 10:10:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch That was all discussed in the links VML provided and not disputed by either the County or Mendez. The only thing that actually looked a little contrived to me was Mendez claim that he was only picking up the BB gun and pointing at the officer as an effort to make his rising from a futon easier, it was in his way from getting up. And that is ridiculous.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 10:14:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune. Of course the uniforms didn't give any indication of who they were. Uniforms have been used by thieves. Mendez was awakened from a nap. Did you even read my concerns. What kind of answer is it? Uniforms? Your title made this about defensive weapons and it isn't in any way. I still want to know how they got the information (erroneous) tat a person they did have a warrent on, and apparently very dangerous You don't find anything at all questionable about his claim that he aim the bb gun at the cop because it was easier to move the futon that way. Doesn't it seem to you a little strange that even the most anti cop judges voted to send this back to the circut court to rule again? 8-0 is a somewhat convincing vote, the cops must not be totally evil in this case.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 6:32:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune. Of course the uniforms didn't give any indication of who they were. Uniforms have been used by thieves. Mendez was awakened from a nap. Did you even read my concerns. What kind of answer is it? Uniforms? Your title made this about defensive weapons and it isn't in any way. I still want to know how they got the information (erroneous) tat a person they did have a warrent on, and apparently very dangerous It is about defensive weapons and about limitation on your Fourth Amendment rights. Information from an illegal wire tap cannot be used in Court. Likewise what follows from an illegal entry should immunize the occupants and place responsibility on the police for everything that follows. Now, please show me in the links I provided where a warrant exists. You don't find anything at all questionable about his claim that he aim the bb gun at the cop because it was easier to move the futon that way. Doesn't it seem to you a little strange that even the most anti cop judges voted to send this back to the circut court to rule again? No claim was made that he aimed the BB gun at anyone. 8-0 is a somewhat convincing vote, the cops must not be totally evil in this case. Indeed! That is the most troubling aspect of the Court's decision and the assault on our civil rights.

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 7:56:42 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML It is about defensive weapons and about limitation on your Fourth Amendment rights. Information from an illegal wire tap cannot be used in Court. Likewise what follows from an illegal entry should immunize the occupants and place responsibility on the police for everything that follows. 8-0 is a somewhat convincing vote, the cops must not be totally evil in this case. Indeed! That is the most troubling aspect of the Court's decision and the assault on our civil rights. I think the words you are alluding to is 'due process'. In order to secure our rights they must exercise due process, like reading miranda for instance which has also been abolished for the most part. Much of due process has been tossed aside in the name of expediency, and of course every time people buy into the save money on procedure pos it always takes another slice out of rights.

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 8:15:33 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub In Vince's story they did not identify themselves... but.... I'll bet in the court transcripts they did or did not have a chance to identify themselves before confronted with a gun. If they did not there has been plenty of settled law covering just that circumstance so as usual.... there is more to the story. Butch You are amazing, Butch, in your efforts to excuse the police for wrong doing. They evidently did not even knock. They entered without warning or identification. The most important thing here is that police provocation strips you of your 4th Amendment rights if you defend yourself. I cannot understand how even the liberal Justices went along with that. I should think it is similar to "the fruit of the contaminated tree," if I got that right. Under 4th Amendment cases if evidence is obtained by illegal wiretapping it is bitter evidence. If action is provoked by the police the citizen should be immune. VML, while I agree with your anger over the 4th amendment issue, keep in mind that there is the real world where Mendez and his girlfriend was shot and then there is the legal world where people get to spend years debating what should have happened during the gun battle. If you re-read the links you posted you'll see that the court have a law in place (not going to go back and look up the legal term used) whereby once the resident of the main house gives permission at the main house it includes out buildings. The 9th circuit didn't question that nor did the supremes. I'll refer to an experience in my past. While on a police ride along we (me part of that we being a civilian observer) got a call that a parole violator who was considered armed and dangerous was in a woman's house beating her. My police guy and his Sargent went to the house and effected an entrance, with guns drawn and no warrant. I personally asked my police guy to park his car a few houses away so I wouldn't be in the line of fire from stray bullets when the gun battle happened. That was real world. I had no 4th amendment problems with it either then or now. But, had a gun battle actually ensued, I'm sure pointy headed lawyers would have spent years second guessing what the cops did. So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it.

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 8:43:52 AM)
There is a HUGE disctinction between breaking down someones door to abate the commission of a crime in progress and breaking down someones door down to simply arrest them. Again its a matter of due process. There are right and wrong ways to do things. Like the shoot first ask questions later then sweep it all under the table they are doing now days.

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 9:07:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne There is a HUGE disctinction between breaking down someones door to abate the commission of a crime in progress and breaking down someones door down to simply arrest them. Again its a matter of due process. There are right and wrong ways to do things. Like the shoot first ask questions later then sweep it all under the table they are doing now days. As I said, there is the real world, the legal world and plenty of facts the OP posted.

kdsub -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 12:45:49 PM)
Vince I am not trying to excuse the police... the story is so outlandish there must be more to it don't you agree? Butch

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 4:22:23 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub Vince I am not trying to excuse the police... the story is so outlandish there must be more to it don't you agree? Butch The ruling was not totally overturned, they were told that the circut court had based the ruling on the wrong thing and needed to review the case. You are correct that there are scewy things about th case.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/23/2017 5:44:35 PM)
quote: So, in this instance, from a distance in time and place, do I have a problem. Well yes, but your OP listed the facts of the case that you wanted discussed. The facts that you presented did not question whether or not the cops had a right to enter an out building once they had permission at the main building. There were plenty of facts to disagree with, yet in the facts you presented that was accepted as legal by everyone via settled law. So get on with it. Nn, I really appreciate your reasoned attempt to parse the issues in this case but I believe you erred. This is from Justice Alioto's Order: On remand, the court should re- visit the question whether proximate cause permits respondents to recover damages for their injuries based on the deputies’ failure to secure a warrant at the outset. 1. Alioto does not link permission at the Main house to entry at the rear shack. 2. Alioto leaves open the possibility the Ninth can link the warrantless entry to proximate cause for damages. True the Ninth already awarded a nominal amount on the warrantless count. I don't know if there is anything that would prevent them to change the monetary award at remand. We shall have to wait and see.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 5 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1113281