9th circuit eliminates 4th Amendment for poor people

S

SmarterthanYou

rebel
govs new right to track your every move

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2013150,00.html#ixzz0xj7m1TSO
 
The logic is mind boggling. That they can place something on your car with a warrant is crazy. If they want to know where I am going, they can follow me and see if they are stealth enough. If not, fuck right off. But this applies to rich people's cars also. Just easier for the rich to rent a car for the day. However, if you find their device, you can remove it without fear of reprisal.
 
i'm sure that they didn't consider (or maybe they did and don't care) that if law enforcement sneaks on to your property in the open and are caught by property owner, are they there legally and lawfully without a warrant and can they be detained at gunpoint? and then when they draw their own weapons, does the shootout commence with no crime being committed by the homeowner defending themselves?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm sure that they didn't consider (or maybe they did and don't care) that if law enforcement sneaks on to your property in the open and are caught by property owner, are they there legally and lawfully without a warrant and can they be detained at gunpoint? and then when they draw their own weapons, does the shootout commence with no crime being committed by the homeowner defending themselves?
Click to expand...

You're Rambo.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
i'm sure that they didn't consider (or maybe they did and don't care) that if law enforcement sneaks on to your property in the open and are caught by property owner, are they there legally and lawfully without a warrant and can they be detained at gunpoint? and then when they draw their own weapons, does the shootout commence with no crime being committed by the homeowner defending themselves?
Click to expand...
You can't draw a gun on someone for trespassing on your property.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
no, TX is not in the 9th circuit. However, the 9th does include the states of AZ, NV, and AK, all of which certainly do allow lethal force to protect property.
Click to expand...

The castle doctrine generally allows people to use lethal force if they're committing felonies. Trespassing isn't a felony. Things may very well be different in TX. If they pull a gun on you, of course, you have the right to defend yourself. But this almost certainly doesn't apply to the police.
 
Last edited:
FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
The castle doctrine generally allows people to use nonselfdefense lethal force if they're committing felonies. Trespassing isn't a felony. Things may very well be different in TX. If they pull a gun on you, of course, you have the right to defend yourself. But this almost certainly doesn't apply to the police.
Click to expand...

do you wish to enforce the rule of law on all people, citizens and police alike? or do you want two sets of laws, one for citizens and one for police?
 
SmarterThanYou said:
do you wish to enforce the rule of law on all people, citizens and police alike? or do you want two sets of laws, one for citizens and one for police?
Click to expand...

I'm just saying. Most of the laws probably have specific exclusions for the police. They were, after all, mostly written by bitter old prosecutors who think the police can do no wrong.
 
FAGGOT OF DEBATE said:
I'm just saying. Most of the laws probably have specific exclusions for the police. They were, after all, mostly written by bitter old prosecutors who think the police can do no wrong.
Click to expand...

that may be true, however, we supposedly still live in a society that has equal protection under the laws. laws that are written with specific exemptions for police and military should be unconstitutional, especially in regards to firearms laws.
 
They would probably even give you life if the police were in plainclothes and didn't identify themselves while pulling a goddamn gun.

I'm actually complaining about this, SMY.
 
SmarterThanYou said:
that may be true, however, we supposedly still live in a society that has equal protection under the laws. laws that are written with specific exemptions for police and military should be unconstitutional, especially in regards to firearms laws.
Click to expand...

And also laws that are actively discriminatory against individuals due to race and gender should be stricken. Like AA, EOC and all that racist garbage.


Affirmative Action is discrimination against white males and is therefore, unconstitional.

Why can't socrtease admit this obvious truth. He is a disgrace to the legal profession.
 
Here in NM we actually have case law that says we can repel illegal force by police officers with deadly force. A cop here in las cruces several years ago pulled a gun on a man that was in a verbal altercation with another civilian. There voices were raised but not to the point of disorderly conduct. The cop told the guy to get in his car and leave, he said not until I straighten this out, the cop pulled a gun, pointed it at the gentleman who pulled his own gun and fired. Not guilty, self defense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top