Arizona Police Officer Execute Man For Telling Them They Needed A Warrant

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
Well then, what proof do you have that any particular police officer violates people's rights daily?

No-Knock Warrants:

Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.
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.

There's one big one.

Especially when we consider that in Illinois, they can enter your home at any time for any reason.

Originally posted by GreenFurnNW
I think the police officer should be executed. eye for a eye

An eye for an eye, and the whole world will be blind.

It is incredibly short sighted to assume an eye for an eye philosophy. The challenge that we face as humans is overcoming our more base and carnal emotional instincts, rising above by embracing logic and reason. The eye for an eye philosophy ignores reason, choosing instead to pursue the base emotion of vengeance.

Not to say vengeance cannot be had. But keep in mind that first, in this case vengeance is not for you to have. And second, vengeance can be had by following solid logic and reasoning to its conclusion. You just have to be patient, and insightful enough to use that patience.

reply to post by Nutter


A no knock warrant is not a violation of the fourth amendment. The fourth amendment does not specify that an officer has to knock on the front door and announce before entering the residence.

All officers, when obtaining a search warrant, swear an oath or affirmation in front of a judge when presenting a written statement of probable cause. The judge reads said probable cause and based on the facts presented makes a determination. The judge then signs the order allowing the police to search said place if probable cause is found. If no probable cause is found then the judge does not sign the order and the police do not search the residence without developing more probable cause.

To obtain a "no knock" warrant, it must be specifically requested and approved by the judge. The officer must clearly state why knocking on the door would create an unreasonable amount of danger to them. For example, if the person being investigated has a propesity for violence or has already committed an extremely violent act. The judge has to take this into consideration and specifically allow the police to conduct a "no knock" warrant.

Especially when we consider that in Illinois, they can enter your home at any time for any reason.

I am not familiar with what you speak of. Either show me clear evidence of this or stop making things up.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
I am not familiar with what you speak of. Either show me clear evidence of this or stop making things up.

Please stop accussing me of making things up just because you are ignorant of a subject. Thanks.

My bad in saying it was Illinois....It's Indiana.

CROWN POINT, Ind. – According to Newton County Sheriff, Don Hartman Sr., random house to house searches are now possible and could be helpful following the Barnes v. STATE of INDIANA Supreme Court ruling issued on May 12th, 2011. When asked three separate times due to the astounding callousness as it relates to trampling the inherent natural rights of Americans, he emphatically indicated that he would use random house to house checks, adding he felt people will welcome random searches if it means capturing a criminal.

smargus.com...

And the ruling:

INDIANAPOLIS | Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes.

www.nwitimes.com...

Originally posted by mindpurge
What ever happened to protecting our rights, and innocents? It's fairly obvious that Gangs should get a zero-tolerance type of reaction from the police force... I am all for that.

And here is part of the problem with society now. You and others like you are "all for" the Rights of those you dislike being violated...but the problem is that it doesn't EVER stop there. We've all heard the "I did nothing when they came for the......and.....lastly they came for me" parable. This is where things went wrong.

You've allowed stupid legislation such as "3 Strikes" and mandatory sentencing to be passed because politicians were able to press your hot buttons and make you fist-pump for "tough on criminals" laws. All the while not realizing that you're cooking your own arse too.

reply to post by Nutter

Please stop accussing me of making things up just because you are ignorant of a subject.

How can I be ignorant of a subject when that subject was brought into light due to your mistake. Like you said, there is no issue in Illinois it is Indiana. The only ignorance here is your mistake and not providing the source.

It is little, out of context, shots like the one I called you on that really make me mad. You offer what you claim is proof to your argument and expect the lay person to know exactly what you are talking about. All I request is that if you are going to bring something into the argument, provide a source so all may look at the evidence and make their own determination.

The source you provided does not provide the exact statements made by the Sheriff in question. Who knows if the little snippet of "house to house" searches is taken out of context? A reputable source would have provided the exact statements made so that the context could clearly be judged. It does provide the link to the Indiana Supreme Court ruling on the appeal of the case which has spurred all the attention. I will provide that here.

Indiana Supreme Court Ruling on Barnes v State

Although I do not agree with the court's ruling that they no longer recognize the right of a person to resist the unlawful entry by the government into their house, I do agree with the merits of the case. The Supreme Court of Indiana was merely stating that in these modern times, the upfront, violent, resistance is unreasonable because after the police leave, it can be brought before a court who can determine if it was unlawful and award damages to the plaintiff without the need for said unreasonable violence.

This defense, that Barnes was resisting unlawful entry, by the government, into his house is completely baseless in my opinion and is merely a guilty man grasping at straws in an attempt to justify his unjustifiable actions. Reading the last paragraph on the 5th page is a perfect articulation why.

Here, the trial court‘s failure to give the proffered jury instruction was not error. Because we decline to recognize the right to reasonably resist an unlawful police entry, we need not decide the legality of the officers‘ entry into Barnes‘s apartment. We note, however, that the officers were investigating a ―domestic violence in progress‖ in response to a 911 call. A 911 call generally details emergency or exigent circumstances requiring swift police action. In these cases, the officers are responding to rapidly changing or escalating events, and their initial response is often based on limited information. The officers cannot properly assess the complaint and the dangers to those threatened without some limited access to the involved parties. It is unrealistic to expect officers to wait for threats to escalate and for violence to become imminent before intervening. Here, the officers acted reasonably under the totality of the circumstances.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


I think it is reasonable for people to want legislation that says if someone is convicted of three felonies they should be subject to harsher punishment. How many felonies should one person be allowed to commit in one lifetime before seeing some real jail time?

That legislation is spawned from leinient judges handing down light sentences to convicted persons and then those convicted persons going back out into public and victimizing more people. People get sick of criminals terrorizing their communities and treating it like their own personal playground.

Originally posted by areyouserious2010
reply to post by DZAG Wright

 

I think it is reasonable for people to want legislation that says if someone is convicted of three felonies they should be subject to harsher punishment. How many felonies should one person be allowed to commit in one lifetime before seeing some real jail time?

That legislation is spawned from leinient judges handing down light sentences to convicted persons and then those convicted persons going back out into public and victimizing more people. People get sick of criminals terrorizing their communities and treating it like their own personal playground.

Attempting to catch everyone in the same net is useless. Lemme get this straight: so a person has 3 strikes and have served their time for those infractions. They shoplift a piece of candy....that person should receive a life sentence? That's ridiculous!

You people who are afraid and begged for the police to protect you from those bad guys are getting us all creamed. You've voted to give the police and other law enforcement too much power. Yeah, right now it may be working in your favor...but what of the day when it's YOU who some police is abusing? And yes, my law abiding, patriotic citizens, it can happen to you just as easily.

reply to post by DZAG Wright

Attempting to catch everyone in the same net is useless. Lemme get this straight: so a person has 3 strikes and have served their time for those infractions. They shoplift a piece of candy....that person should receive a life sentence? That's ridiculous!

You are correct that it would be ridiculous. But you are misinformed.

The three strikes laws vary from state to state but all have to do with being CONVITCED of three or more FELONIES. Shoplifting a piece of candy, in any state, is not a felony.

Three Strikes Laws

Felonies include serious crimes such as murder, rape, robbery, burglary, grand theft, kidnapping and various other serious crimes. What is so unreasonable with passing legislation that if someone commits three, of one or a combination, of these crimes they should be sentenced to very harsh penalties.

The laws merely take away some judicial discreation when it comes to sentencing. They do not effect whether or not they are found guilty.

You people who are afraid and begged for the police to protect you from those bad guys are getting us all creamed.

No one is afraid and begging for the police to protect them when it comes to the three strikes laws. This legislation merely is people saying once you have identified as a repeat serious offender, please make sure they are not put back into society because they clearly are incapable of existing in it without committing serious crimes.

You've voted to give the police and other law enforcement too much power.

The three strikes laws have absolutely nothing to do with the police. It is a sentencing guideline for the judicial system.

Yeah, right now it may be working in your favor...but what of the day when it's YOU who some police is abusing? And yes, my law abiding, patriotic citizens, it can happen to you just as easily.

This has nothing to do with your argument as it pertains to the three strikes laws. Most law abiding, patriotic citizens will never face the day they are accused of their third felony, while already being convicted of two and facing life without parole. So no, as it pertains to the three strikes laws, it cannot just as easily happen to you.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


How many crimes should a law enforcement agent or officer be able to get away with before facing real serious charges and jail time?

Don't bother answering, the system is designed to cover up these crimes and protect these criminals, and when that fails, a double standard justice system can be applied to them, to assure a minimum sentence, and minimum fines, and preferably acquittal in most cases.

Give me a badge, some authority, and a staff of hand picked (by me) special agents and investigators, about 100 will do. An independent office building and a modest budget to start with... Freedom to investigate and run surveillance on any all law enforcement, in any jurisdiction in the USA.... We'll even catch some in the act.

We'll bring them to justice by the hundreds!

From the top to the bottom, and if need be from the bottom to the to the top.

And ultimately make it pay for itself!

We'll bring in a television production crew and make the whole thing a reality TV show... It would be an instant hit!

COPS ... Gone bad!

Whacha gonna do when they come for you.... bad boys, bad boys...

In no time at all, things would get better all around.

reply to post by Fractured.Facade


No one is arguing the fact that a police officer clearly committing a crime is wrong. Some would argue that it is even worse than a regular person committing a crime because of the misuse of the public trust. This is what internal affairs of police departments, the FBI and the Department of Justice do everyday. They find the clear cut cases of police officers committing crimes and they stomp on them.

What you choose to argue about is the not so clear cut cases. Like deeming something excessive force or brutality when it is not clearly a case of such. Or deeming a police shooting unnecessary without knowing all the facts. There are many more, so many that I cannot list them all.

This is where your argument falls short. You claim to champion against police corruption and misconduct but have absolutely no experience or knowlege in the field which is required to pass that sort of judgement fairly and without bias. In turn you victimize countless police officers who have done nothing wrong and have simply performed the ugly task of using a reasonable amount of force and the job that is required of them.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


If given the chance and my suggestion was taken seriously ( ), evidence in the courts would ultimately prevail.

Internal affairs is a joke... And it's not funny anymore.

The status quo remains... The system as is, corruption spreads and eventually?

Well, we'll just have to wait and see.

reply to post by areyouserious2010


Thats because he is mistaken. The State he is referring to is Indiana, where their Suprme Court has recently ruled a Police Officer can enter a residence without consent, or really needing a reason. It had to do with a Domestic Violence call that ook place, much like this thread, where one party told the police to enter and a second party tried to refuse the Police enterance.

The individual who refused was eventually subdued after a fight and arrested.

It really doesnt matter how many time ou try to explain it to people, there are those on this site who only see what they want while they ignore anything that does not support their arguments.

As another poster pointed out, certain people on these forums are all about civil rights, except when it comes to a group they dont agree with or even like. Then they have no issues throwing their civil rights out the window while trying to claim the moral high ground.

People seem to ignore the theme of this site, and instead choose to embrace ignorance instead of denying it.

Where are the Serpico's of the world hiding?

reply to post by Xcathdra


To clarify for the Indiana incident, which he made it out to be something its not. The law in question makes it illegal to resist an officer when entering a home. It does not grant carte blanche for an officer to randomly pick a house and enter it.

The Officers are still subject to 42 USC 1983 and the burden of justifing their actions still falls on the officer. Resisting an officer, regardless of intent, is not an affirmative defense in court.

Originally posted by Xcathdra
It does not grant carte blanche for an officer to randomly pick a house and enter it.

I call bs on this one.

In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing the official response for the court stated if a police officer wants to enter a home for any or even for no reason, a homeowner or any other person can not do anything to resist or block the officers entry into a private home.

“In my view the majority sweeps with far too broad a brush by essentially telling Indiana citizens that government agents may now enter their homes illegally – that is, without the necessity of a warrant, consent or exigent circumstances,” Rucker said. “I disagree.”

papersourceonline.com...

www.copblock.org...

Yes it does give carte blanche for an officer to randonly pick a house and enter it.

Who is embracing ignorance now?

reply to post by Fractured.Facade

You might want to check out Barry Cooper, he's a former narcotics agent from Texas who is doing what you suggest. I won't post any links due to not wanting to violate any T&C, but you can do a search on barry cooper odessa texas copbusters

His show is called copbusters, and while his first sting was against an entire police force, he will and has worked with other police forces to bust dirty cops.

reply to post by NuroSlam


Finally a good cop. I notice you mentioned he's a former narcotics officer. Is he former because he tried to rat out the bad ones while on the force and got kicked off? I'd bet my next pay check that is what prompted his show.

Originally posted by Nutter
reply to post by NuroSlam

 

Finally a good cop. I notice you mentioned he's a former narcotics officer. Is he former because he tried to rat out the bad ones while on the force and got kicked off? I'd bet my next pay check that is what prompted his show.

edit on 21-6-2011 by Nutter because: (no reason given)

No, one day he woke up and realised that what he was doing was wrong on so many levels that he couldn't do it any more. Sadly, for his efforts to try and fix the system, the police that he "violated" went after his children.

Originally posted by NuroSlam
No, one day he woke up and realised that what he was doing was wrong on so many levels that he couldn't do it any more.

I guess there really is hope after all.