'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

a reply to: Xcathdra

No people are definitely a central feature of the fourth amendment to the US constitution:

Amendment IV

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...
The right of the people to be secure in their persons...

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated...Sounds like a thing like you should feel free to walk down the street and not be seized by the gestapo. Sounds like a thing where you should be able to get ambushed between the wildlife refuge that you are illegally occupying as an act of armed protest and the neighboring county that you're headed to, and should be able to get a conversation before the bullets start flying. You know a sort of 'well that's all well and good Mr. Finicum, but we're taking you in all the same' type of thing, before they start shooting that is.

a reply to: diggindirt

Its called ROR (released Own Recognizance).

It mean instead of sitting in jail with no bond / high bond the judge released her with terms.
Those terms are usually -
* - Restricted movement (area) / prohibited movement (cant leave the state)
* - Inability to leave the country / passport held by the court.
* - prohibited from speaking to / contact with certain persons (usually people involved whom were also charged).
* - Check in with the court at certain times
* - Ankle monitor

etc etc..

So no, they aren't "making it up".

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Yeah it applies to the government and not the individual. You have to read the entire amendment.

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.

It is saying the government must show cause in order to obtain a search warrant / arrest warrant.

Since civilians can not obtain an arrest warrant / search warrant on their own it does not apply to them.
Since civilians are not acting under "color of law" it does not apply to them.

When the police fail to follow the 4th (whether accidental or intentional) and they collect evidence that evidence can fall under what's called "the fruit of the poisonous tree".

It means the evidence would be thrown out and any other evidence collect stemming from that initial collection would also be thrown out.

The amendment is saying -
If a police officer wants to arrest / search "the people / houses / papers / effects" they must follow the requirement spelled out (part I made bold above).

It applies to the government, not the individual.

Sources -
* - United States v. Jacobsen 466 U.S. 109 (1984)

The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the

"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."

This text protects two types of expectations, one involving "searches," the other "seizures." A "search" occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. [Footnote 4] A "seizure" of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. [Footnote 5] This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: diggindirt

Its called ROR (released Own Recognizance).

It mean instead of sitting in jail with no bond / high bond the judge released her with terms.
Those terms are usually -
* - Restricted movement (area) / prohibited movement (cant leave the state)
* - Inability to leave the country / passport held by the court.
* - prohibited from speaking to / contact with certain persons (usually people involved whom were also charged).
* - Check in with the court at certain times
* - Ankle monitor

etc etc..

So no, they aren't "making it up".

So, what was this statement about then?

Absent being on probation / parole you cant be kept from crossing state lines nor can you be barred from entering a city.

Shawna Cox isn't on probation. She is awaiting trial. That would make your statement above false wouldn't it? Obviously, you can be kept from crossing state lines or banned from entering a city absent being on probation /parole if the Cult of Authority wishes it so.

a reply to: diggindirt

Yeah my bad.. I should have added ror for pretrial stipulations (the other 2 still stand so no not false, just an oversight). Generally speaking law enforcement has little to no involvement in pretrial motions for bond / no bond / ror.

We have a lot with the probation / parole part because if we have official contact with someone and we run their name we get whats called a p&p hit. We are required, at the end of contact, to provide dispatch with why we had contact and how that contact progressed (compliant no action taken / not compliant and why and the result).


Sorry

a reply to: Xcathdra

Yes, of course...once the words warrant or probable cause came along, all those silly words about people being secure in their persons etc. went right out the window. A person's life is then forfeit should they happen to be caught in your purview, unless you deem to decide otherwise right? Gosh, you cops are so nice and stuff, usually not shooting us down when by your definition of the law you pretty much could shoot down anyone who gets in your way even...so nice...so considerate, really...thanks for the correction there. I was obviously in error.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Aside from the ignorant personal attack you have anyt5hing related to what we are talking about?

By the way here is the info you apparently ignored.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

* - United States v. Jacobsen 466 U.S. 109 (1984)

The first Clause of the Fourth Amendment provides that the

"right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated. . . ."

This text protects two types of expectations, one involving "searches," the other "seizures." A "search" occurs when an expectation of privacy that society is prepared to consider reasonable is infringed. [Footnote 4] A "seizure" of property occurs when there is some meaningful interference with an individual's possessory interests in that property. [Footnote 5] This Court has also consistently construed this protection as proscribing only governmental action; it is wholly inapplicable "to a search or seizure, even an unreasonable one, effected by a private individual not acting as an agent of the Government or with the participation or knowledge of any governmental official."

originally posted by: Xcathdra
a reply to: GeisterFahrer

Opinion is not a substitute for law and there is nothing to get over. He died because apparently acting like a loon didn't work out so well. I look forward to your argument with the state of Oregon when you tell them he was murdered and demand people be tried for it.

Make sure you cite your opinion so the people who actually know what they are doing can have a good laugh when they send you packing.

Anything on topic?

Robert LaVoy Finicum was shot to death when he was attempting to surrender. That was murder.

I feel better about myself as a person knowing you think that was humorous. You can certainly exclude me from any group that glorifies murder of someone because in their "opinion" the person was acting like a loon.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Robert LaVoy Finicum was shot to death when he was attempting to surrender.

he never attempted to surrender, he was shot whilst reaching for a gun

That was murder.

No it was not.

originally posted by: hellobruce

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Robert LaVoy Finicum was shot to death when he was attempting to surrender.

he never attempted to surrender, he was shot whilst reaching for a gun

That was murder.

No it was not.

First of all, you don't know he was reaching for a gun.
Secondly, we know the truck was being fired on as it approached the roadblock.
Thirdly, we know Finicum had his arms in the air when he exited the vehicle while shots were being fired.
Fourthly, he was murdered.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Not at all. It was aimed at your point of view not you personally. It was an attempt to point out the absurdity of your stated point of view, and it was not meant as a hurled insult. I was attempting to highlight what I feel to be your mischaracterization of the fourth amendment. Police adopting this attitude and approach to enforcing the law in addition to being unconstitutional is unethical, immoral, and dangerous to public health. If you're offended by the way I feel about it, you should work on that.

A person's rights do not go out the window when a warrant has been issued by probable cause, or probable cause has been determined by an executive agent. In fact in such an instance their rights listed become even more important. The right to be challenged by authorities, and to be informed that they are being arrested. There's a reason that this is part of the procedure for arresting someone. If you're going to seize my person(body), you have to address me and inform me of that fact, under law. You can't pull out your piece and pop off a warning shot across my mirror. You just destroyed that process by doing so.

It's a tough job, I know. Deal with it, or go do something else. Go drive a cab for awhile. It'll broaden your perspective. I don't hate cops. People here that talk way more crap than me don't really hate cops. They want to be able to depend on reliable, smart, upstanding people to help them with their major problems that they are having in their lives. We want to love and respect those people, not fear and loathe them.

When law enforcement carry out their duties with respect for the rights of those they enforce the law upon, it engenders respect for their office within the community. When law enforcement carry out their duties with a contempt for people's rights in the process of enforcing the law, it engenders contempt for their office within the community.

I think this is one of the typical arguments of the problems with the culture of policing. I think some departments get it, others don't. I only view the issue as an outsider, so I couldn't speak much to the finer points. I wouldn't know how the insiders discuss it, or whether they even discuss it at all. It's something I've noticed over the years though.

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Its not a mischaracterization of the 4th amendment - its fact. Ironic you claim you view this as an outsider yet you make claims, like the 4th amendment, which have no base in reality.

Is their mistrust between police and the communities they serve? Absolutely.

Communication is key to overcoming those issues however its a 2 way road. As an example your view of the 4th amendment and incorrect application of it. Even when you are shown the facts you refuse to believe it, which makes you a part of the problem as well.

If you are unwilling to learn and listen your views of law enforcement / certain people will never change. You will continue to base your position on opinion rather than fact and it will continually set you up for failure when it comes to government action.

The facts have been provided for you... all thats left is for you to drink the water. Absent that you will be standing their with the other horses dying of thirst and nor know why.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
First of all, you don't know he was reaching for a gun.

Correct which means his actions, putting his hand in pockets, present a clear threat. Secondly its what the officers perceived when force was used. As stated before its totality of circumstances and not the single act at the end.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Secondly, we know the truck was being fired on as it approached the roadblock.

We also know prior to that they fled the scene of a lawful detention and failed to stop even after reaching the final roadblock.

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Thirdly, we know Finicum had his arms in the air when he exited the vehicle while shots were being fired.

The video doesnt support that claim. He came out with his hands up then put them in his pockets.

Start at 5:54

originally posted by: GeisterFahrer
Fourthly, he was murdered.

Finicums actions dont support that either.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Whatever, dude. You can't even make a citizen's arrest without informing a person of it. Those same restrictions apply to law enforcement. You can't just run up, tackle somebody, cuff them and drag them off. You're supposed to tell them you're arresting them. If you want it to be a legal arrest, that is.

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Xcathdra

Whatever, dude. You can't even make a citizen's arrest without informing a person of it. Those same restrictions apply to law enforcement. You can't just run up, tackle somebody, cuff them and drag them off. You're supposed to tell them you're arresting them. If you want it to be a legal arrest, that is.

Which has what to do with what I said?

a reply to: Xcathdra

The fourth amendment applies very much to people, though I agree with you that it does help to define the limits of government's authority.

Also:
'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

a reply to: TheBadCabbie

Mr. Moore probably came to that opinion from watching the video, listening to the two eyewitnesses who have been allowed to speak to the public and looking at the totality of the situation. It became clear to me when the FBI agent read the script written for him.
I found it interesting that his script called the formation where the shooting took place a "roadblock" but in the Q & A, he went off-script and called it a "checkpoint."

originally posted by: TheBadCabbie
a reply to: Xcathdra

The fourth amendment applies very much to people, though I agree with you that it does help to define the limits of government's authority.

Also:
'In my opinion Mr. Finicum was murdered,' says Nevada Assemblyman John Moore

I think we've hit a wall on this. The 4th amendment does protect the individual but it does not apply to them for the reason / case law / amendment ive laid out. A citizen cannot obtain a warrant. Only a person acting under color of law / agent of the state can.

The 4th was put in place as a response to general warrants from the crown that required nothing more than a person of authority saying ok to it with nothing supporting it except the authority of the crown or his / her representatives.

The 4th is present to force/require the government to have probable cause to arrest / search a citizen.

Anyways since we seem stuck in a loop on this we need to agree to disagree since we arent going to convince each other.

As for the Nevada Assemblyman John Moore, who was not present when any of this occurred is entitled to his opinion under the 1st amendment. Although sometimes it pays to keep your mouth shut and let people think your an idiot than open your mouth and remove all doubt.

Its always gratifying to see a politician thinking they are experts in areas they know nothing about.

a reply to: diggindirt

That was no check point. It was a road block.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Agreed. We're just going around in circles over the semantics on that 4th amendment argument, aren't we? Agreed, table it then.

As to the state assemblyman's opinion. Not an experienced lawman, but an experienced military man. Experienced enough to recognize the layout of an ambush when he sees one. This veteran agrees with him. I've been thinking(and occasionally writing) this all along. The layout of the thing doesn't seem to make sense, if they were trying to do everything they could to bring these folks in alive. A poorly planned hem up then, at the very least. Perhaps something worse...