Recommended Posts
QuoteQuote
By the way, where is that case law on people who successfully sued the IRS using the "what's mine is mine, not yours" argument?
Re: "Mine not yours": I never made the claim in the manner in which you are characterizing it.
Really? So you didn't write: "So it's now incumbent upon Government to take from those who have EARNED it, and give it to those who have not?"
I wonder who was impersonating you.
You are grossly misinterpreting my words.
And you can stuff your sarcasm where the sun does not shine.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuote
By the way, where is that case law on people who successfully sued the IRS using the "what's mine is mine, not yours" argument?
Re: "Mine not yours": I never made the claim in the manner in which you are characterizing it.
Really? So you didn't write: "So it's now incumbent upon Government to take from those who have EARNED it, and give it to those who have not?"
I wonder who was impersonating you.
You are grossly misinterpreting my words.
And you can stuff your sarcasm where the sun does not shine.
You wrote it and the context is clear.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuote
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?Quote"Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back"
Tell us WHICH right OKLAHOMANS were denied, COUNSELOR.
The right to BEAR arms in public for their RIGHT of self-defense, a right that pre-dates the Constitution.
Oklahomans weren't denied that.
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
Discuss Arizona v. Gant and how Terry v. Ohio intersect in the performance of duty by law enforcement. Too much uneducated discussion here about "rights" and "police states" and "big brother".... Phooooey.
Kennedy 0
AZ v Gant covers search incident to arrest and it's extent beyond suspect. Terry covers stop and or frisk based on reasonable suspicion. There is little or no intersection.
But you're right. Lots of phooey. Particularly the professor's idea that no one has rights until a court says they do.
But you're right. Lots of phooey. Particularly the professor's idea that no one has rights until a court says they do.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Sorry, but the intersection is the impact on how law enforcement operates using discretion (the instant opinion of the officer) when there may be probable cause for a search.
Terry has to do with "pat downs". Gant has to do exigent circumstance leading to a search with respect to evidence. Both deal with the 4th Amendment and warrantless searches.
Not to argue with you, but I see way too many wannabe lawyers pontificating on the site. Bugs me, some times
Terry has to do with "pat downs". Gant has to do exigent circumstance leading to a search with respect to evidence. Both deal with the 4th Amendment and warrantless searches.
Not to argue with you, but I see way too many wannabe lawyers pontificating on the site. Bugs me, some times
Quote...Wannabe lawyers...
=Those without a J.D. and a Bar admission.
bingo..............
Kennedy 0
QuoteQuoteQuote
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?Quote"Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back"
Tell us WHICH right OKLAHOMANS were denied, COUNSELOR.
The right to BEAR arms in public for their RIGHT of self-defense, a right that pre-dates the Constitution.
Oklahomans weren't denied that.
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?
So would it be your contention that women were not denied the right to vote, they just didn't have that right until the 19th amendment? Would you say slaves were not denied their rights, they just didn't have them until the 13th 14th and 15th amendments?
Your games are not clever or entertaining. Add something of substance for a change.
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Kennedy 0
QuoteSorry, but the intersection is the impact on how law enforcement operates using discretion (the instant opinion of the officer) when there may be probable cause for a search.
Terry has to do with "pat downs". Gant has to do exigent circumstance leading to a search with respect to evidence. Both deal with the 4th Amendment and warrantless searches.
Actually, I will argue with you, because you're wrong. AZ v Gant was about search incident to arrest, not exigent circumstances. It has nothing to do with discretion any more than plain view, abandoned property, or the myriad other exceptions to the 4th. Furthermore, Terry is not about seraches and probable cuase. It specifically defines pat downs as different from searches and reasonable suspicion as a lesser standard than PC.
QuoteNot to argue with you, but I see way too many wannabe lawyers pontificating on the site. Bugs me, some times
You appear to be one of them. Do you bug yourself often?
witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*
QuoteSo would it be your contention that women were not denied the right to vote, they just didn't have that right until the 19th amendment? Would you say slaves were not denied their rights, they just didn't have them until the 13th 14th and 15th amendments?
Yes. To both suggestions.
I'm having a hard time understanding how you can presently deny any legislated right that didn't exist until a later time.
Back to the cops.
I hope nobody thinks that ALL cops are bozos. Not true at all. It's the bozos that give the good guys the bad name.
The good guys bring it on themselves when they adhere to the the Thin Blue Line mentality.
AggieDave says WE can change things and that's true, maybe...over the long run. Meanwhile, IMO, HE could work it from his end too and could, with cooperation from other good cops, have a more immediate affect.
Nah...it ain't a-gonna happen. Cops get just more outrageous as time goes on simply because they can because the courts and legislators and lawyers allow it....and in many cases encourage it.
My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239
Arvoitus 1
Quote
I have nothing to hide but, the driver isn't necessarily the registered owner. Sounds like a Big Brother way of keeping an eye on all of us.
Hahah, what? Some random cop with busy fingers and bit of extra time checking people's license info is Big Brother to you?
Where I'm from we have these systems that automatically monitor road traffic. The system has a camera connected to a computer. The computer has software that can identify a car and its license plate from the video. The computer is also connected to national database of licenses and registrations. If you're driving an uninsured or non-inspected car ( we have an inspection system were you have to have your car checked for road worthiness on a yearly basis ) you'll get automatically ticketed.
Your rights end where my feelings begin.
QuoteMeanwhile, IMO, HE could work it from his end too and could, with cooperation from other good cops, have a more immediate affect.
Yes and no.
Specifically what laws would you prefer to see officers selectively enforce? Would those officers be "good" cops in your view? What if the laws that were chosen to be selectively enforced were actually the ones that you wanted enforced? Would those officers still be "good" cops in your view?
On the surface it is easy to get behind someone saying "well, the good cops could only enforce the good laws, since it is so hard to change what the laws are." However, that is a horribly slippery slope and by definition, will discriminate against someone, even if it isn't you.
--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline."
Nope...., nope and nope. Licensed law enforcement officers usually have been schooled in Terry and Gant. That's why I mentioned them.
The short version from Wiki.
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
The short version from Wiki.
Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332 (2009), was a United States Supreme Court decision which held that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires law enforcement officers to demonstrate an actual and continuing threat to their safety posed by an arrestee, or a need to preserve evidence related to the crime of arrest from tampering by the arrestee, in order to justify a warrantless vehicular search incident to arrest conducted after the vehicle's recent occupants have been arrested and secured.
Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court which held that the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizures is not violated when a police officer stops a suspect on the street and frisks him without probable cause to arrest, if the police officer has a reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing, or is about to commit a crime and has a reasonable belief that the person "may be armed and presently dangerous." (392 U.S. 1, at 30.)
For their own protection, police may perform a quick surface search of the person’s outer clothing for weapons if they have reasonable suspicion that the person stopped is armed. This reasonable suspicion must be based on "specific and articulable facts" and not merely upon an officer's hunch. This permitted police action has subsequently been referred to in short as a "stop and frisk," or simply a "Terry stop". The Terry standard was later extended to temporary detentions of persons in vehicles, known as traffic stops; see Terry stop for a summary of subsequent jurisprudence.
The rationale behind the Supreme Court decision revolves around the understanding that, as the opinion notes, "the exclusionary rule has its limitations." The meaning of the rule is to protect persons from unreasonable searches and seizures aimed at gathering evidence, not searches and seizures for other purposes (like prevention of crime or personal protection of police officers).
kallend 2,027
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuote
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?Quote"Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back"
Tell us WHICH right OKLAHOMANS were denied, COUNSELOR.
The right to BEAR arms in public for their RIGHT of self-defense, a right that pre-dates the Constitution.
Oklahomans weren't denied that.
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?
Crickets.
I guess Desertattorney Esq.(unverified) can't answer the question.
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?Quote"Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back"
Tell us WHICH right OKLAHOMANS were denied, COUNSELOR.
The right to BEAR arms in public for their RIGHT of self-defense, a right that pre-dates the Constitution.
Oklahomans weren't denied that.
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?
Crickets.
I guess Desertattorney Esq.(unverified) can't answer the question.
Pfftttt...........You act as if you have to go to Law School to become an attorney.
http://www.ehlinelaw.com/pages/3226/How_to_Become_an_Attorney__-_No_Law_School_-_No_College.htm
kallend 2,027
QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteQuote
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?Quote"Damn those Oklahomans for wanting their 2nd Amendment rights back"
Tell us WHICH right OKLAHOMANS were denied, COUNSELOR.
The right to BEAR arms in public for their RIGHT of self-defense, a right that pre-dates the Constitution.
Oklahomans weren't denied that.
Which ruling of the SCOTUS made it unconstitutional for a state not to issue CCW permits?
Crickets.
I guess Desertattorney Esq.(unverified) can't answer the question.
Pfftttt...........You act as if you have to go to Law School to become an attorney.
http://www.ehlinelaw.com/pages/3226/How_to_Become_an_Attorney__-_No_Law_School_-_No_College.htm
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The right to BEAR arms in public for their RIGHT of self-defense, a right that pre-dates the Constitution.
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites