|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Cops Dont Have to Knock, New Justices Say [Re: dedjam]
#5767398 - 06/19/06 09:41 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Shouldnt matter...last time I checked you are innocent until proven guilty. All this speculation about someone getting rid of evidence or whatever shouldnt matter unless they are already assuming you are guilty
by that line of reasoning, no one should be be arrested or searched until they've been convicted of a crime. nonsense.
Edited by wilshire (06/19/06 09:58 AM)
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Cops Dont Have to Knock, New Justices Say [Re: AlteredAgain]
#5767404 - 06/19/06 09:45 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
It's one thing if the police already know beforehand whether the suspect owns a weapon and/or has a violent criminal history. It's a whole different situation if the suspect only has a drug use history and/or a record of laboratory equipment purchases for example.
why is it a whole different thing? does it not still provide an opportunity to destroy evidence?
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Cops Dont Have to Knock, New Justices Say [Re: RosettaStoned]
#5767413 - 06/19/06 09:47 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
you don't honestly believe that they will pay for 1 fucking thing they break do you?
is that you're only objection to this? what if they weren't allowed to break down a door, but could only nondestructively pick the lock or open an unlocked door? would you be opposed to it then? on what grounds?
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Cops Dont Have to Knock, New Justices Say [Re: wilshire]
#5767446 - 06/19/06 09:56 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
here are some reasons why police should be allowed to do this. it's not a complete list but i don't think i need to come up with more for you to get the point. it can prevent a person inside from:
1. destroying evidence 2. arming themselves 3. taking up an ambush position 4. releasing toxic chemicals 5. detonating an explosive 6. fleeing 7. harming another person in the residence 8. taking a hostage
i'd like to hear some reasons, other than the fact that we'd all like the chance to flush our stash before the cops come in, that this shouldn't be allowed. not all criminals are warm and fuzzy stoners you know.
|
Annapurna1
liberal pussy

Registered: 05/21/02
Posts: 5,646
Loc: innsmouth..MA
|
Re: Cops Dont Have to Knock, New Justices Say [Re: Konnrade]
#5767567 - 06/19/06 10:48 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Konnrade said: One of the biggest problems in civilized nations is the concept held by citizens, politicians, and enforcers that thinks "criminals" are less than a person, perhaps 3/5 of one... so the remaining 2/5 is the part of them that would have been entitled to decency, respect, courtesy, free speech, etcetera.
this is getting a bit off the topic..but it raises the point that the US constitution does not assign any meaning to the "3/5" clause in article I.2.3 beyond "indians not taxed"...as such..it is still valid and open to whatever interpretation serves the interests of big govt.. big business.. etc...
--------------------
"anchor blocks counteract the process of pontiprobation..while omalean globes regulize the pressure"...
|
wilshire
free radical


Registered: 05/11/05
Posts: 2,421
Loc: SE PA
Last seen: 14 years, 3 months
|
Re: Cops Dont Have to Knock, New Justices Say [Re: Annapurna1]
#5767621 - 06/19/06 11:09 AM (17 years, 10 months ago) |
|
|
this is getting a bit off the topic..but it raises the point that the US constitution does not assign any meaning to the "3/5" clause in article I.2.3 beyond "indians not taxed"...as such..it is still valid and open to whatever interpretation serves the interests of big govt.. big business.. etc...
where the hell do you get this stuff?
the 3/5 clause counted a slave as 3/5 of a person in dividing federal taxation and representation proportionally amongst the states by population. its meaning has always been quite clear. what's more, it was appealed a very long time ago. it has nothing to do with big brother, the neocons, the new world order, illuminati, freemasons, 9-11, the new world order, corporations, or whatever you're dreaming about now....
completely false and off topic nonsense. seriously... where do you get this stuff?
back on topic...
Edited by wilshire (06/19/06 11:22 AM)
|
|