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

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

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

Message

vincentML -> Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 10:41:36 AM)
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?

Musicmystery -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 10:49:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: vincentML Where is the freakin ACLU? Right here: https://www.aclu.org/cases/county-los-angeles-v-angel-mendez

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:01:45 AM)
Thats because of the common deception our lovely zionist overlords have implanted in everyones brains when they turned the constitution and law upside down to serve the gubmints purposes instead of the people. That is known as tyranny and despotism. Constitutional imbeciles do not understand the 'reserved rights doctrine', and because this is the case the gubmint makes hay and stomps our rights at every turn with impunity. Its the gubmint that picks these judges. The people did not agree tio the constitution until the gubmint agreed that they....[the gubmint] had no jurisdiction over speech, religion, arms, (not guns), privacy, and trial by jury (not judge, or completely bypassing the the constitution using 'summary judgment'. If the gubmint did not agree to the rights reserved strictly to the people the constitution never would have existed in the first place. Today its all turned upside down where the gubmint makes the laws and judges themselves according to the laws they made, a complete conflict in interest, the same conflict in interest all common law brit terrorities have....well in common.

Real0ne -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:07:59 AM)
"No man's life, liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session", ~Mark Twain

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:09:31 AM)
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? VML, when you read all of the documents you linked it's not as you describe. It appears that SCOTUS slapped the 9th Circuit and sent the case back to them. Since the 9th Circuit is the most overturned in the U.S. That's not much of a surprise.

Musicmystery -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:11:24 AM)
No, the 9th Circuit isn't the 'most overturned court in the country,' as Hannity says: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/ The Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. The absolute highest among the circuit courts distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15, followed by the 11th Circuit at 85 percent (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia). The 9th Circuit is in third place, at 79%. The 9th Circuit never had the highest reversal rate in any individual term between 2004-15. (That’s the farthest back the authors could go.)

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:18:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Musicmystery No, the 9th Circuit isn't the 'most overturned court in the country,' as Hannity says: http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2017/feb/10/sean-hannity/no-9th-circuit-isnt-most-overturned-court-country-/ The Supreme Court reversed about 70 percent of cases it took between 2010-15. The absolute highest among the circuit courts distinction goes to the 6th Circuit, which serves Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and Tennessee, with an 87 percent average between 2010-15, followed by the 11th Circuit at 85 percent (Alabama, Florida, and Georgia). The 9th Circuit is in third place, at 79%. The 9th Circuit never had the highest reversal rate in any individual term between 2004-15. (That’s the farthest back the authors could go.) You might enjoy knowing that I can't stand Hannity and wouldn't have heard that from him. So the third, out of eleven, most overturned court.

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:24:09 AM)
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.

MrRodgers -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:35:16 AM)
Well what the operative mechanism is, is the use required here however specious...is the courts 'Orwellian' mangling of words to justify their clear violation of defendants 4th amend. rights. Those words are 'qualified immunity' that is anti-constitutionally awarded the police. Seems they didn't think of the 'qualified immunity' awarded by the king when British troops could break into your home and either shoot you or, just take up residence...or both. This is the same 'Orwellian' change in the meaning of the constitution when Rehnquist opined that to continue the recount in Florida, would do...'irreparable harm' to respondents, i.e. Bush. Irreparable harm ? Now that too...is a good one. 'The first refuse of the new tyranny, is...in the courts.' Mr. Rodgers. Take heed people, just like the British Army et al, could create the reason for breaking into your home (or have none at all) and shooting you if they felt they needed to, the police in America can now do...the same thing. This American exceptionalism is taking hold people, the police are becoming totally empowered to shoot first...first...and ask questions later. I wonder if at some seminar or legal lecture if anyone will ask Alito the question of just who else and under what circumstances does the state acquire 'qualified immunity' to violate your constitutional rights ? The brutality and another casualty in the...'war' on drugs ?' parolee ? for parole violation no less ?

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:41:37 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well what the operative mechanism is, is the use required here however specious...is the courts 'Orwellian' mangling of words to justify their clear violation of defendants 4th amend. rights. Those words are 'qualified immunity' that is anti-constitutionally awarded the police. Seems they didn't think of the 'qualified immunity' awarded by the king when British troops could break into your home and either shoot you or, just take up residence...or both. This is the same 'Orwellian' change in the meaning of the constitution when Rehnquist opined that to continue the recount in Florida, would do...'irreparable harm' to respondents, i.e. Bush. Irreparable harm ? Now that too...is a good one. 'The first refuse of the new tyranny, is...in the courts.' Mr. Rodgers. Take heed people, just like the British Army et al, could create the reason for breaking into your home (or have none at all) and shooting you if they felt they needed to, the police in America can now do...the same thing. This American exceptionalism is taking hold people, the police are becoming totally empowered to shoot first...first...and ask questions later. I wonder if at some seminar or legal lecture if anyone will ask Alito the question of just who else and under what circumstances does the state acquire 'qualified immunity' to violate your constitutional rights ? The brutality and more casualties in the...'war' on drugs.' This was a civil case and awards were given to Mendez. The Supreme Court didn't say Americans have to billet troops. It said how the 9th Circuit arrived at its decision was contrary to establised law and told them to do it over.

MrRodgers -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:43:21 AM)
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.

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:47:03 AM)
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?

WhoreMods -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:49:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji So why would the NRA be interested? Because they see it as their job to protect poor slandered guns from nasty people trash talking them, at a guess.

WickedsDesire -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:56:15 AM)
Hero from police death squads pumps yet another nigger full of bullets. What was his testimony - 1. I pulled the criminal nigger over 2, He told me he had a concealed permit 3. I pumped him full of bullets 4. I had a bit of a think about mowing down the 4 year olde running from the car but I had run out of nigger bullets Case dismissed. When is nigger hunting season in America anyway - seasonal, or can i come over pretty much any time and bag me a couple of darkies? Oh I threaded this one - I just cant keep up with all your nigger hunts. Here is the movie Philando Castile death: Police footage released _______________ Anyway, so the Supreme court refused to hear the case? And referred the appeal back to the 9th then why the 8-0? And yet the court had awarded it the first time, but declined it the second time by 8-0, seems a bit off to me. Perhaps the NRA, LA County Sheriff deputies and your 4th amendment & 9th circuit threatened to shoot everyone dead - rape the corpses and all that? Is this a trick question? Well they wernt black or they would have been murdered on the spot for being a bit of a nigger.

Nnanji -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 11:57:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: WhoreMods quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji So why would the NRA be interested? Because they see it as their job to protect poor slandered guns from nasty people trash talking them, at a guess. I've been an NRA member for years. I've never seen the NRA become involved because people were trash talking guns. While I don't see as much of the ACLU, I don't suppose they get involved with people trash talking the 1st Amendment either. I'd have to guess that your guess was pretty much pulled out of your ass.

MrRodgers -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 12:21:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Nnanji quote: ORIGINAL: MrRodgers Well what the operative mechanism is, is the use required here however specious...is the courts 'Orwellian' mangling of words to justify their clear violation of defendants 4th amend. rights. Those words are 'qualified immunity' that is anti-constitutionally awarded the police. Seems they didn't think of the 'qualified immunity' awarded by the king when British troops could break into your home and either shoot you or, just take up residence...or both. This is the same 'Orwellian' change in the meaning of the constitution when Rehnquist opined that to continue the recount in Florida, would do...'irreparable harm' to respondents, i.e. Bush. Irreparable harm ? Now that too...is a good one. 'The first refuse of the new tyranny, is...in the courts.' Mr. Rodgers. Take heed people, just like the British Army et al, could create the reason for breaking into your home (or have none at all) and shooting you if they felt they needed to, the police in America can now do...the same thing. This American exceptionalism is taking hold people, the police are becoming totally empowered to shoot first...first...and ask questions later. I wonder if at some seminar or legal lecture if anyone will ask Alito the question of just who else and under what circumstances does the state acquire 'qualified immunity' to violate your constitutional rights ? The brutality and more casualties in the...'war' on drugs.' This was a civil case and awards were given to Mendez. The Supreme Court didn't say Americans have to billet troops. It said how the 9th Circuit arrived at its decision was contrary to establised law and told them to do it over. The question is now up to the district court on real damages. But billeting of troops was only part of the problem. The king's army afforded themselves the right to enter, search and even shoot, if necessary, So this is a direct parallel on why we even have a 4th amend. The term or even the concept of qualified immunity should not even exist. There are many steps the police (and courts) can take to prevent just this kind of tragedy.

MrRodgers -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 12:32:06 PM)
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.

BamaD -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 12:32:48 PM)
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.

MrRodgers -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 12:36:56 PM)
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.

kdsub -> RE: Sometimes Guns don't keep us safe at home ~ SCOTUS (6/22/2017 12:51:40 PM)
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

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

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.109375