quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

your wealth of stupidity is your finest attribute, you are a coward sock hiding in the basement of an outhouse, with those of your intellect and knowledge.

You are not talking to anyone, and no one is talking to you, you are a retard, and a little google searcher, with really poor skills.

You mimic and do not understand, you are a moron.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

The right of people to be secure in their persons..........think about it, dig up some information, instead of disinformation.

That is pure and raw disinformation right there.

The 4th Amendment not only doesn't say that, it was never meant to imply that or even suggest it. Attempting to twist the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution to mean what you want it to mean is not only disingenuous and ignorant, it is down right disrespectful.

So you can go screw right off you pathetic ignorant disrespectful shill of a boy.
How dare you try and twist Our constitution to fit your own stupid argument.

sorry you fucking pathetic and propaganda retard, it certainly does.

why dont you put the 4th amendment here?

so, you can go back to your little toilet stall you pathetic sick sad lying fucking sackless sucking calf, how dare you be such a fucking retarded pantshitting toiletlicker and buffoon.

The cop murdered the guy, end of story, and you defend it like the little nutsucker and coward you are. His life, his right of the people to be secure in their persons was seized unreasonably and you are a fuckwhistle of the lowest form of foetid shit.

oh, yeah, read Madisons notes, you fucking untutored cunt.

That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property and goods by the government against it's citizenry, one of the major components which initiated the revolution in the first place. Writs of Assistance provided to British Officers empowered them to search any residence or building without warning or supervision. Officers could then confiscate whatever they deemed to be 'smuggled' or 'improperly obtained' with out evidence, cause, or reason as to what made that judgement. And this shit should of been taught to you during Grade School Social Studies or American History.

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons' specifically is it Every Implied. It is only your ignorant twisting of reality which makes it seem that way...

But what you have shown us is that you have a complete and utter disregard for the words of the Constitution and our History as Americans.

quote:

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons'

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

of the 4th Amendment you wrote:

quote:

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons'

The 9th Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, simply because there are rights not included in the text, that does not deny their existence nor does it give the Government control over those implied rights, and more specifically, does not give the authority to infringe upon those fundamental rights.

I would say the 9th Amendment reserves citizens the right to "be secure in their persons"

quote:

ORIGINAL: vincentML

of the 4th Amendment you wrote:

quote:

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons'

The 9th Amendment states, "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." In other words, simply because there are rights not included in the text, that does not deny their existence nor does it give the Government control over those implied rights, and more specifically, does not give the authority to infringe upon those fundamental rights.

I would say the 9th Amendment reserves citizens the right to "be secure in their persons"

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

the part of The 4th Amendment we are discussing:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

The component 'people to be secure in their persons' is not an individual thought or statement - it is a part of an ordered list giving you conditions of action 'against unreasonable searches and seizures'

This means each individual component is supposed to be made into the complete statement with the action.
The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
The right of the people to be secure in their houses against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
The right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.
The right of the people to be secure in their effects against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated.

This means that they cannot take the clothes off your back, the pages food out of your home, the pages out of your books, or the tools out of your shed with out reasonable cause in doing so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I asked you who owns your person, and if you know what a person is, clearly you dont.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property and goods by the government against it's citizenry, one of the major components which initiated the revolution in the first place. Writs of Assistance provided to British Officers empowered them to search any residence or building without warning or supervision. Officers could then confiscate whatever they deemed to be 'smuggled' or 'improperly obtained' with out evidence, cause, or reason as to what made that judgement. And this shit should of been taught to you during Grade School Social Studies or American History.

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons' specifically is it Every Implied. It is only your ignorant twisting of reality which makes it seem that way...

But what you have shown us is that you have a complete and utter disregard for the words of the Constitution and our History as Americans.

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I dont know there is an argument about the 4th. The argument is that she murdered a helpless tazed guy laying on the ground.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

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


Dont be communist nutsuckers and pussies. Be fucking Americans.

how exactly does the 4th Amendment play into this... like at all?
I'm curious.

The right of people to be secure in their persons..........think about it, dig up some information, instead of disinformation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I asked you who owns your person, and if you know what a person is, clearly you dont.

It is a nonsensical derivative point which you are using to try and manipulate the argument down a different venue.

but fine - let's engage it directly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property and goods by the government against it's citizenry, one of the major components which initiated the revolution in the first place. Writs of Assistance provided to British Officers empowered them to search any residence or building without warning or supervision. Officers could then confiscate whatever they deemed to be 'smuggled' or 'improperly obtained' with out evidence, cause, or reason as to what made that judgement. And this shit should of been taught to you during Grade School Social Studies or American History.

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons' specifically is it Every Implied. It is only your ignorant twisting of reality which makes it seem that way...

But what you have shown us is that you have a complete and utter disregard for the words of the Constitution and our History as Americans.

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

At what point in the entirety of what you quoted does the term' Ownership' even come up? Where is it even implied in that discussion?

You may as well of asked 'Why do Cow's go Moo?' for all the relevance it too has in the current discussion being had.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I asked you who owns your person, and if you know what a person is, clearly you dont.

It is a nonsensical derivative point which you are using to try and manipulate the argument down a different venue.

but fine - let's engage it directly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property and goods by the government against it's citizenry, one of the major components which initiated the revolution in the first place. Writs of Assistance provided to British Officers empowered them to search any residence or building without warning or supervision. Officers could then confiscate whatever they deemed to be 'smuggled' or 'improperly obtained' with out evidence, cause, or reason as to what made that judgement. And this shit should of been taught to you during Grade School Social Studies or American History.

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons' specifically is it Every Implied. It is only your ignorant twisting of reality which makes it seem that way...

But what you have shown us is that you have a complete and utter disregard for the words of the Constitution and our History as Americans.

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

At what point in the entirety of what you quoted does the term' Ownership' even come up? Where is it even implied in that discussion?

You may as well of asked 'Why do Cow's go Moo?' for all the relevance it too has in the current discussion being had.

I highlighted for you but that apparently wasnt good enough, now I brought out the crayolas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

he was tazered and lying on the ground face down then murdered? (and shot in the back?) Or am I getting a couple of these police death squad stories mixed up. Sure seems to be a lot of the I shoot the darkie in the back stories.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne


I asked you who owns your person, and if you know what a person is, clearly you dont.

It is a nonsensical derivative point which you are using to try and manipulate the argument down a different venue.

but fine - let's engage it directly.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property and goods by the government against it's citizenry, one of the major components which initiated the revolution in the first place. Writs of Assistance provided to British Officers empowered them to search any residence or building without warning or supervision. Officers could then confiscate whatever they deemed to be 'smuggled' or 'improperly obtained' with out evidence, cause, or reason as to what made that judgement. And this shit should of been taught to you during Grade School Social Studies or American History.

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons' specifically is it Every Implied. It is only your ignorant twisting of reality which makes it seem that way...

But what you have shown us is that you have a complete and utter disregard for the words of the Constitution and our History as Americans.

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

At what point in the entirety of what you quoted does the term' Ownership' even come up? Where is it even implied in that discussion?

You may as well of asked 'Why do Cow's go Moo?' for all the relevance it too has in the current discussion being had.

I highlighted for you but that apparently wasnt good enough, now I brought out the crayolas.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

That is not what the 4th amendment means, and Madison did not in any way ever imply that when he penned the Amendment.

the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property

now thats interesting, if you dont own your 'person' who the fuck does?

Do you have any idea what that is even?

So you're saying that because you are illiterate and are trying to take a phrase out of context in the hopes of ignorantly applying it to a statement that it doesn't fit with... I'm.... wrong? I'm not sure how you intended this to play out...

Searching one's person is to search that individuals clothes, personal effects worn, or the cavities of their body... And the 4th Amendment protects us from such treatment, making it unlawful with out reasonable cause. That is what is meant in the language:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons against unreasonable searches and seizures

quote:

It in no way protects a person in the security of themselves, or ensures them that they are to be 'be secure in their persons'

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: WickedsDesire

he was tazered and lying on the ground face down then murdered? (and shot in the back?) Or am I getting a couple of these police death squad stories mixed up. Sure seems to be a lot of the I shoot the darkie in the back stories.

He was shot then tasered... although saying that aloud doesn't make it sound like that is much better.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
-snip-

quote:


the 4th Amendment protects specifically against unlawful search and seizure of property and goods by the government against it's citizenry.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail
The right of people to be secure in their persons...

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real0ne
since you made such a dumb assed statement that I crayola'd for you I asked you what the fuck a person is and who owns it. and your answer is to quote the 4th, that qualifies for got you by the balls and you know it, or you are one ignoramus fuck take your pick.