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

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/25/2017 7:05:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door.

kdsub -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/25/2017 8:56:29 PM)
That is my point as well. As Vince has laid out his story the decision of the courts would be too outlandish to stand without facts not presented. Butch

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/25/2017 11:45:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. well provocation doesnt have anything to do with the 4th. scrotum wants the 9th to come up with a direct causal chain of events linked to the 4th.. No warrant, heard noise, grabbed the bb gun, door was busted down, thought I was being robbed, fear for my life, split second to reac and so forth. Provocation is a synthesis, damn good one but not a direct causal link.

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/25/2017 11:48:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR This does not, contrary to what some seem to want us to believe, start when the cops got to the door. It is not plausable that they were driving along and said hey lets go kick that door in and see who we can shoot. Why were they there? Did they have permission from the owner? What did the cops think was going on. We have one side of the story and the circuit court, as happens so often, ruled based upon an irrealivant law. They have only been ordered to get their heads on straight and do the job right, the Supreme court has not ruled for or against the plantive. Why did he have a bb gun for protection, couldn't he afford anything better or couldn't he pass the background checks? maybe he had some felony at some point, felons can legally own a bb gun.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/26/2017 1:14:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD FR This does not, contrary to what some seem to want us to believe, start when the cops got to the door. It is not plausable that they were driving along and said hey lets go kick that door in and see who we can shoot. Why were they there? Did they have permission from the owner? What did the cops think was going on. We have one side of the story and the circuit court, as happens so often, ruled based upon an irrealivant law. They have only been ordered to get their heads on straight and do the job right, the Supreme court has not ruled for or against the plantive. Why did he have a bb gun for protection, couldn't he afford anything better or couldn't he pass the background checks? maybe he had some felony at some point, felons can legally own a bb gun. I know that, even in CA. I gave that as a reason he had one instead of a real gun.

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/26/2017 5:44:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NoirMetal too many people are getting shot by cops going to the wrong address. This no knock policy is pure bullshit and has to stop. Agreed. I'm probly not going to shepardise this to the nth degree, however I will point out that the court leans toward gubmint as usual. they use 'reasonableness' the letter of the constitution strictly in the context of the cops actions but I have not seen them use it in reverse. When they come in unannounced by any means, any 'reasonable' person will construe that as an attack on their property and person and they likewise have a split second to make a decision same as the cop. In these situations the courts also conveniently overlook the fact that its a 2 way street and disregard that it is a fundamental 'trespass' upon the person and property outside of lip service. They made an 'excuse' for cops to violate the constitution a little bit by providing an avenue for a cop to make an 'investigatory stop' which is nothing more than 'lets snoop' around for a while arrest, totally in violation of the 4th. Its an arrest if you are not free to leave, but they pretend its not and that is the bulk of the evil spawn of these cops being immune to damn near anything they do today short of premeditated murder. The take away point here is that any resonable person as T was talking about would reach for a gun if their door was knocked down and those who knocked the door down failed to properly identify themselves prior to knocking it down. Proper use of force is an escalation as required giving the suspect the opportunity to come out first, not break the door down shoot first then carry them out in a body bag. The idea that they can flush drugs down the toilet and destroy the evidence is another bogus one. All one need do is call the city and they can collect samples from the tube, but a human life isnt worth all the trouble. Coming in without a warrant is actually use of 'illegal' force

WickedsDesire -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/26/2017 12:12:32 PM)
Fuking door knockers

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/26/2017 10:17:02 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door. There is nothing in the record that I saw that confirmed the Sheriff's Deputies were in uniform. If you find it please point it out to me. Thank you.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/27/2017 2:19:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door. There is nothing in the record that I saw that confirmed the Sheriff's Deputies were in uniform. If you find it please point it out to me. Thank you. Being in uniform is the default, they didn't say they weren't in uniform, so you have no reason to assume they weren't.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/27/2017 6:56:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door. There is nothing in the record that I saw that confirmed the Sheriff's Deputies were in uniform. If you find it please point it out to me. Thank you. Being in uniform is the default, they didn't say they weren't in uniform, so you have no reason to assume they weren't. Bullshit. They were deputies not traffic cops.

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/27/2017 7:07:30 PM)
even if they were in uninform that meaningless https://www.amazon.com/Rothco-Short-Sleeve-Uniform-Shirt/dp/B0002EJ1RC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498615628&sr=8-1&keywords=police+uniform

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/27/2017 9:04:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne even if they were in uninform that meaningless https://www.amazon.com/Rothco-Short-Sleeve-Uniform-Shirt/dp/B0002EJ1RC/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1498615628&sr=8-1&keywords=police+uniform On Friday morning, in what police described as a poor attempt to imitate a police officer, Pacheco-Bustamante set a blue siren atop his cop-like Ford Crown Victoria and turned it on. He was signaling for the SUV in front of him to pull over. His mistake, other than not looking much like a cop: The man he pulled over in the unmarked SUV turned out to be Miami-Dade Detective Alton Martin, dressed in full uniform. Almost as quickly as Martin and Pacheco-Bustamante got out of their vehicles, the cop wannabe was taken into custody. He was charged with falsely impersonating a police officer and jailed. His bond was set at $5,000. Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/crime/article144644439.html#storylink=cpy What a dumb ass . . . . [sm=happy-smiley58.gif]

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/28/2017 1:28:50 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door. There is nothing in the record that I saw that confirmed the Sheriff's Deputies were in uniform. If you find it please point it out to me. Thank you. Being in uniform is the default, they didn't say they weren't in uniform, so you have no reason to assume they weren't. Bullshit. They were deputies not traffic cops. Buillshit they were patrol officers not investigators. You are pretendindening that the decision was overuled. It wasen't, the Supreme Ciourt just said they have to base thier ruling on legal precedence.

vincentML -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/28/2017 6:08:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door. There is nothing in the record that I saw that confirmed the Sheriff's Deputies were in uniform. If you find it please point it out to me. Thank you. Being in uniform is the default, they didn't say they weren't in uniform, so you have no reason to assume they weren't. Bullshit. They were deputies not traffic cops. Buillshit they were patrol officers not investigators. You are pretendindening that the decision was overuled. It wasen't, the Supreme Ciourt just said they have to base thier ruling on legal precedence. The remand was for warrantless entry. Nothing about uniforms. You know what a warrant is, right?

kdsub -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/28/2017 9:42:26 AM)
The only thing i can figure vince is ....exigent circumstances...was used. Butch

Termyn8or -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/28/2017 10:48:00 AM)
Back to the OP here. In my better days I could have shot all of them and it would be my word against nobody's. They use that all the time. But it is a fact that guns do not keep us safe. It is not the gun you have in a locked cabinet or whatever and it takes you a half an hour to find the key. It is one in your hand and YOU are the operator of the killing machine. This is a tremendous responsibility, and not to be taken lightly. Guns are gut a tool, a bit more powerful than knives or axes or hammers or whatever, or even bare hands. Many people tend to fear them, but those who understand them do not. We respect them, kinda like electricity. You can die fucking around with your wiring if you don't know what you're doing. Same thing with a gun, but with a gun you can shoot a loved one or a friend. Well before you start toting iron like that you have to learn how to control it, just like you have to learn how to drive a car which can cause even more mayhem. You don't just buy one and stick it in your pocket. Well you can but you might find yourself in prison for 20 years for something you never intended to do. Those killing machines are quite efficient. We have had them all along, but others have not. If you ever get one and don't know about them please do learn about them. They are KILLING MACHINES. Make no mistake about this. Even target practice needs to be attended to with special care, because accidents will happen. If YOU have the gun it is YOUR responsibility to make sure that accidents do not happen. But the fact is that they do not provide safety, unless in the hands of a responsible adult who knows how to use it. This is a tool that is machined on lathes and milling machines, nothing more, nothing less. Their sole purpose is to kill and we got lots of them. Get used to it. But really, it is not the gun that keeps us safe, it is the person with their finger n the trigger. T^T

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/28/2017 5:09:41 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML quote: and I have to admit that to the credit of the 9th, provocation AFAICS would be a good test to add, maybe not in this case but others to put a stop to police escalating matters as they are now rather than descalating them. Personally, I think "provocation" applies well in this case, but unfortunately, the idea does not seem to have any constitutional precedence in Fourth Amendment law. And the Supremes aren't buying it. I realize that wearing a uniform constituts provication, but even the 9th is expected to follow sone constitutional precedence. They cannot, even though they want to just make up law. And we still have nothing about what happened before the cops went to the front door. There is nothing in the record that I saw that confirmed the Sheriff's Deputies were in uniform. If you find it please point it out to me. Thank you. Being in uniform is the default, they didn't say they weren't in uniform, so you have no reason to assume they weren't. Bullshit. They were deputies not traffic cops. Buillshit they were patrol officers not investigators. You are pretendindening that the decision was overuled. It wasen't, the Supreme Ciourt just said they have to base thier ruling on legal precedence. The remand was for warrantless entry. Nothing about uniforms. You know what a warrant is, right? Of course I and evryone else knows what a warrent is. We also know what permission of the owner means, did they have it, I don't know and apparently neighther do you. And you still don't acknowledge that all the court has demanded that the circuit rule based on reality. This does however indicate that your fantasy that the were plian closed is just that. I just mentioned the uniforms to point out that he did know they were cops. Come on now he pointed the gun at an officer because he needed to to straighten out the futon?

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/28/2017 5:22:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: kdsub The only thing i can figure vince is ....exigent circumstances...was used. Butch This is why I want to know what happened before the deputies got to the door. I am not saying that the cops are right, but as you say there must be more to the story.

Musicmystery -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (7/25/2017 3:50:26 PM)
Or at least that's possible.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (7/25/2017 4:41:54 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery Or at least that's possible. With what we have the cops were riding along and said that door looks like it would be fun to kick in. That or there is lot more to the story than what we have.

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

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.1933594