Stop & Frisk Captures Wanted Murderer - Trump Was Right

[Taft2016]

Was the 4th amendment intended to protect against arbitrary arrests as well as searches? Yes or no.

I stand by that statement. "warrant in hand" is an idiomatic expression, like in your back pocket, dummy. Anyone can be arrested for outstanding warrants, nobody suggested otherwise. A guy walking down the street that is not objectively evidencing any behavior that portends of imminent criminality, you can't lay a finger on him without a warrant. It's the 4th amendment, and you had no idea it protected persons from arrest. You want to supply facts like there is already an open warrant, or he is wielding a fucking knife, or you know he is the guy who owns the house with the bodies buried in his backyard, go ahead, but that's you, nothing I said. People can't be fucked with by cops for no reason, as you seem to want, jack boot.

So the summation of your long and tortured logic and flowery rhetoric is "the police can not arrest anyone who hasn't done anything illegal"?

That's the profundity you were fumbling around for for pages?

Thanks, that's quite enlightening.

 

[sear]

#156

Not sure what your intended point is.
As I clearly stated in #154 the 4th Amendment was ratified, became "the supreme law of the land" [see Art.6 Sect.2, aka "the supremacy clause"] in the 18th Century, not the 20th.

If your intended counterpoint is that it was toothless until bolstered by precedent, that's a separate issue. I refuted the following:

" for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

However poorly the "supreme law of the land" was enforced, it was the supreme law of the land since the day it was ratified, December 15, 1791.

I'm glad you agree with me that precedent is a powerful influence on law and how it is interpreted and applied.

Miranda may be the most familiar to non-experts of law. Police gave the Miranda warning, because of a court case named Miranda v.

You're welcome.

 

[Taft2016]

Yeah, and what year was Miranda decided?

Boom.

You refuted nothing. There were no search and seizure restrictions until the courts gave them their current interpretation.

I never said it was "toothless," I said it did not exist, which for this country's first century was closer to what the Founders had in mind.

Today's criminal rights are all concoctions of liberal activists.

 

[Taft2016]

Or is it your contention that the Founders watched all sorts of warrantless searches and seizures going on and never thought to say "Hey, this is not what we intended"?

 

[sear]

T2 #163

Miranda is not the linchpin of human rights.

Our Bill of Rights was ratified in the 18th Century.

You pretending that: " for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along" T2 #153

is not reality-based.

Our laws evolve. I've never denied it. And they have done so since BEFORE the Revolution!

That doesn't corroborate your absurd: "for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

K A B A M ! ! !
!!

 

[Taft2016]

T2 #163

Miranda is not the linchpin of human rights.

Our Bill of Rights was ratified in the 18th Century.

You pretending that: " for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along" T2 #153

is not reality-based.

Our laws evolve. I've never denied it. And they have done so since BEFORE the Revolution!

That doesn't corroborate your absurd: "for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

K A B A M ! ! !
!!

And of course Miranda is a 5th Amendment case, and we've been discussing the 4th. But naturally your ignorance knows no bounds.

What you so non-chalantly refer to as "evolve" is actually "liberal judicial activism."

For what you're saying to be accurate, the Founders had to have been looking at a systemic violation of their 4th Amendment going on every day for the remainder of the lives, and never said a word about it.

And those violations continued for over an entire century, with *EVERY* judge in the nation complicit in this outrage, from local magistrates like Judge Roy Bean west of the Pecos, up to the US Supreme Court, until a bunch of 20th century liberals finally figured out what the Founders *REALLY* meant by the 4th Amendment.

Do you have any idea how absurd that premise is? Talk about no basis in reality.

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 to be seized.

So what does the Amendment say should be done if a search is done without a warrant or without probable cause?

If a person is arrested without probable cause? If evidence is improperly seized?

It doesn't say, does it?

*ALL* of that which came later in the 20th century, every single bit of it, is liberal activist fabrication.

*NONE* of it existed in the Founder's country, nor for the century that followed them. There were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement. They are not in the 4th Amendment, they are liberal inventions.

Suggested reading: "Writs of Assistance"

Learn something, meathead.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

The 1st Amendment SAYS "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

While the words SAY, "abridging", "peaceably", and "establishment", along with others along those same lines, tell me what determines whether something has been abridged, is no longer peaceful, and what constitutes establishment. To do so, you have to use subjective opinions. Who gets to determine when what the Constitution SAYS applies or doesn't apply? It seems you think you get to make that determination for the rest of us and we're supposed to accept your OPINION.

WE THE PEOPLE get to determine that, provided the sheeple aren't led to the trough of a judges proclamation that they aren't allowed to judge the law, just the facts as presented. there is a reason that we still have a jury and jury nullification, for when tyrannical government looks to use 'security' as an excuse to override their limitations.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And yet for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along.

Is it your contention the Constitution was immediately ignored once it was signed?

it took less than 5 years from ratification for the new federal government to start deviating from their limitations.

 

[Taft2016]

it took less than 5 years from ratification for the new federal government to start deviating from their limitations.

How did that work? Was there was one huge lurch into totalitarianism that stayed in place for a century, or was it a gradual erosion of rights until your liberal saviors arrived?

Was John Adams the worst or just the first?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

How did that work? Was there was one huge lurch into totalitarianism that stayed in place for a century, or was it a gradual erosion of rights until your liberal saviors arrived?

Was John Adams the worst or just the first?

it was a constant and steady descent in to totalitarianism. from both sides, mind you. why is it that idiots like you can't see that there are some of us who actually SEE that you both on the left and the right have slavery of the people in your agenda?

 

[Taft2016]

it was a constant and steady descent in to totalitarianism. from both sides, mind you. why is it that idiots like you can't see that there are some of us who actually SEE that you both on the left and the right have slavery of the people in your agenda?

Only if you define "slavery" as "enforcing the laws enacted by the people's duly elected legislators."

You, on the other hand, hope to hold them enslaved to the criminal element. Your personal rugged individualism inspires awe, but there are the old and helpless among us who lack your all powerful self defense skills, such as shooting people who dare to pick up their own laptops.

The 4th was written to prevent a repeat of the abuses of colonial Writs of Assistance. To think in 1791 it was intended to include the idiotic guidelines it currently does is as dumb as saying the 14th was written to protect same sex marriage.

Did they intend that if a law enforcement office reasonably believes criminal activity is afoot in a residence he has to run and get a warrant?

Absolutely not, which is why it was never even argued for a century. It was the abusive nature of Writs of Assistance they were addressing.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Only if you define "slavery" as "enforcing the laws enacted by the people's duly elected legislators."

I know we're supposed to follow and obey are 'elected' legislators like the good serfs that we are, but if YOU believe that everything that comes out of congress is constitutional, then you are simply not equipped with the intelligence necessary to discuss this.

You, on the other hand, hope to hold them enslaved to the criminal element. Your personal rugged individualism inspires awe, but there are the old and helpless among us who lack your all powerful self defense skills, such as shooting people who dare to pick up their own laptops.

The 4th was written to prevent a repeat of the abuses of colonial Writs of Assistance. To think in 1791 it was intended to include the idiotic guidelines it currently does is as dumb as saying the 14th was written to protect same sex marriage.

you like to refer to these guidelines and exceptions as 'liberal' concoctions, but you do realize that the rehnquist court carved out several 4th Amendment exemptions?

Did they intend that if a law enforcement office reasonably believes criminal activity is afoot in a residence he has to run and get a warrant?

Absolutely not, which is why it was never even argued for a century. It was the abusive nature of Writs of Assistance they were addressing.

I think you might be a little shocked at just how limited the founders intended law enforcement/government to be.

 

[sear]

"Miranda is not the linchpin of human rights.

Our Bill of Rights was ratified in the 18th Century.

You pretending that: " for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along" T2 #153

is not reality-based.

Our laws evolve. I've never denied it. And they have done so since BEFORE the Revolution!

That doesn't corroborate your absurd: "for the country's first 100+ years there were NO search and seizure restrictions on law enforcement until the liberal activists came along." T2 #153

K A B A M ! ! !
!!" s

"And of course Miranda is a 5th Amendment case, and we've been discussing the 4th. But naturally your ignorance knows no bounds." T2

I don't recall having asserted it was the 4th.

My comment referred to "Our Bill of Rights".

 

[Taft2016]

I know we're supposed to follow and obey are 'elected' legislators like the good serfs that we are, but if YOU believe that everything that comes out of congress is constitutional, then you are simply not equipped with the intelligence necessary to discuss this.

Constitutional or not, the Founders empowered us with the vote to replace any and all legislators who pass laws distasteful to us.

What they did NOT empower us with is the authorization to violate any laws we find distasteful.

you like to refer to these guidelines and exceptions as 'liberal' concoctions, but you do realize that the rehnquist court carved out several 4th Amendment exemptions?

And? If you think everything that comes out of a conservative court is going to be conservative, then you are simply not equipped with the intelligence necessary to discuss this.

I think you might be a little shocked at just how limited the founders intended law enforcement/government to be.

No, I completely agree. But regardless of how small government is intended to be, its primary and most legitimate functions will always be to protect the people from internal and external, international and domestic threats.

It's one thing to protect the innocent from prosecution, it's quite another to shield the guilty, which is what the courts have spent the past 100 years constructing. That's nothing but unadulterated libtardism, and certainly not the Founders vision.

James Madison would be horrified to see a child rapist/murderer saunter out court smirking on a liberal concocted technicality. As should anyone who considers themselves a patriot.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

Constitutional or not, the Founders empowered us with the vote to replace any and all legislators who pass laws distasteful to us.

What they did NOT empower us with is the authorization to violate any laws we find distasteful.

never heard of jury nullification?

And? If you think everything that comes out of a conservative court is going to be conservative, then you are simply not equipped with the intelligence necessary to discuss this.

No, I completely agree. But regardless of how small government is intended to be, its primary and most legitimate functions will always be to protect the people from internal and external, international and domestic threats.

It's one thing to protect the innocent from prosecution, it's quite another to shield the guilty, which is what the courts have spent the past 100 years constructing. That's nothing but unadulterated libtardism, and certainly not the Founders vision.

James Madison would be horrified to see a child rapist/murderer saunter out court smirking on a liberal concocted technicality. As should anyone who considers themselves a patriot.

guess you disregard the founders reliance on blackstones formulation, don't you?

While compiling his highly influential set of books on English common law, William Blackstone expressed the famous ratio this way:
“All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer.”

This variation was absorbed by the British legal system, becoming a maxim by the early 19th century. It was also absorbed into American common law, cited repeatedly by that country's Founding Fathers, later becoming a standard drilled into law students all the way into the 21st century.
Ben Franklin's version of Blackstone's Ratio is very commonly quoted

Other commentators have echoed the principle; Benjamin Franklin stated it as, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer"

 

[Taft2016]

You're rolling into the territory of lunacy.

Yes, there should be safeguards to protect the innocent, not technicalities to free the guilty.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

You're rolling into the territory of lunacy.

Yes, there should be safeguards to protect the innocent, not technicalities to free the guilty.

so the founders were lunatics?

 

[Taft2016]

so the founders were lunatics?

The Founders didn't invent liberal technicalities, especially out of a fear that social circumstances cause individuals to turn to crime and that's "it's not really their fault."

All of that is contemporary libtardism.

 

[Taft2016]

As for your breathless love for jury nullification, sanctuary cities are a similar form of legal nullification.

Would you be quite so giddy if one of your loved ones (assuming you have any) were to be raped/murdered by an illegal alien housed in a sanctuary city, similar to what happened to Kate Steinle?

 

[sear]

"never heard of jury nullification?" SY #175

I've been a FIJA* fan for quite some time.

BUT !!

Before deliberation the law judge "charges" the jury.

And in so doing, a law judge may or may not instruct the jurors to obey the law. Jury nullification is about ignoring the law, ie:

- Yes. The defendant is guilty, but was justified in stealing the car, to get his daughter to the hospital to save her life. -

Basically the government officials in our criminal justice system:
- the DA & ADA
- the law judges
oppose FIJA.
I understand their position, even if I don't robustly endorse it.

* Fully Informed Jury Amendment: enshrining jury nullification as a legal option into our legal system