[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Dead Constitution See other Dead Constitution Articles Title: People like Lp's robertpaulsen are why the U.S. is in the shape it is in today This thread concerns police entering the fenced backyard of a family's home and murdering their dog because they had a tip that someone they wanted to talk to was there. There was no warrant for this persons arrest, they just wanted to talk to him. It is my contention that robertpaulsen is an average American and represents the mindset of the average America. I say this because I speak to people like this, both young and old, on a daily basis. #8. To: Grapple (#7) "If the officers wanted to talk to the daughter then walk up to the front door not enter the back yard." According to the article, the police officers were looking for a guy who had "a history of running from police". Consequently, "officers went to both the front and back of the home ...". Now, because you've read the article and know there was a dog in the back yard, you're saying the police should not have entered the back yard, knocked on the front door, and allowed the guy to flee out the back. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 10:00:38 ET Reply Trace #13. To: Itzlzha (#11) "So...their "fear" that he might run out the back gave them just cause to enter a property by the rear gate WITHOUT WARRANT..." The police had probable cause (they had heard a tip) to believe the person they wished to question was at the house and it was a fact that he had a history of fleeing from police. They don't need a warrant to knock on the front door to question someone. "You are allowing TOO MUCH UNCONSTITUTIONAL POWER to be placed in the hands of trigger happy JBTs!" How were their actions unconstitutional? And what kind of warrant did they need to question someone -- a search warrant, an arrest warrant, a "question" warrant, what? robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 11:48:31 ET Reply Trace #14. To: Grapple (#12) "So how was this guy supposed to escape out the backyard if the police were standing outside of the backyard gate?" I don't know. Jump the fence away from the gate? "They did not have to enter the backyard" Sure they did. He had a history of fleeing from police. "A backyard which they had no warrant to enter." They had probable cause. They didn't need a warrant. And what kind of warrant are you talking about? robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 11:52:14 ET Reply Trace #17. To: Itzlzha (#15) "They could secure the rear perimeter outside the gate." Obviously they felt they couldn't. Unlike you, I wasn't there. "They came to the front door...they had NO RIGHT to trespass in the gated back yard WITHOUT cause!" So, coming to the front door is OK but going to the back door is trespassing. Got it. By the way. They had probable cause that the person they wished to question WAS at the house and had a history of fleeing. Now. Your turn. What kind of warrant did they require? robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 13:04:08 ET Reply Trace #18. To: Itzlzha (#16) "What "probable cause"? RTFA. They had a tip he was there. "Or, it can be an area upon which the homeowners have taken extra measures to ensure privacy." They weren't there to arrest him. They merely wanted to talk to him. They weren't there to search his house or his property. It wasn't even his house or his back yard. They had probable cause that the person they wished to question WAS at the house and had a history of fleeing. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 13:16:07 ET Reply Trace #20. To: Itzlzha (#19) "If, as you say, they had "probable cause", then they needed a WARRANT!" Third request. What kind of warrant did they need? robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 13:39:25 ET Reply Trace #26. To: Itzlzha (#22) "A Serarch warrant to enter the curtilage and property uninvited!" A search warrant authorizes law enforcement to conduct a search of a location for evidence of a criminal offense and seize such items or information. The judge will want to know the criminal offense for which this warrant is being obtained. What would you tell the judge? A search warrant must be specific as to the object to be searched for and the place to be searched. The judge will want to know the object and the place. What would you tell the judge? robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 13:56:54 ET Reply Trace #27. To: Itzlzha (#23) "An officer recieves a "tip", and goes to a home." What kind of tip? Robbery in progress? Kidnapping? Rape? Domestic violence? House on fire? Let's try this. The police are looking for John Smith because they have some questions to ask him. An officer receives a "tip" that John Smith is visiting his girlfriend at her home at 10 Elm Street. The police go to 10 Elm Street and knock on the door. A person answers the door, the officer explains the situation, and asks to speak to John Smith about official police business. Now, take it from there. What's your question? "Nothing had been established yet when the police in the back VIOLATED the curtilage and illegally ENTERED the homeowner's property, and shot the family dog that was ON ITS OWN PROPERTY DOING WHAT IT WAS SUPPOSED TO...STOPPING ILLEGAL ENTRY!" While the police are at the front door, other officers go around back since John Smith has a history of fleeing the police. It's pitch black. They stand around in the back yard, making sure no one in the house tries to sneak out the back. Now, take it from there. What's your question? Police at the front door constitutional? Of course. Police in the back yard constitutional? Of course. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 14:15:07 ET Reply Trace #29. To: Itzlzha (#28) One last time. If you refuse to answer these two basic, simple questions, we're done on this thread. A search warrant authorizes law enforcement to conduct a search of a location for evidence of a criminal offense and seize such items or information. The judge will want to know the criminal offense for which this warrant is being obtained. What would you tell the judge? A search warrant must be specific as to the object to be searched for and the place to be searched. The judge will want to know the object and the place. What would you tell the judge? robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 18:54:27 ET Reply Trace #31. To: Itzlzha (#30) "Answer the question....why no WARRANT?" Because there was no crime. The "suspect" was not a fugitive! Where did you get that? The police merely wanted to question him. If the suspect was a fugitive (he was not), and if the police had an arrest warrant (they did not), they could enter the home if they had probable cause to believe he was there (which they did). There is no such thing as a search and seizure warrant for a person. That would be an arrest warrant. So we have no crime and no evidence we're looking for. Good luck finding a judge to give you a search warrant. "Why enter the property UNANNOUNCED and UNWELCOME in the back?" Because the guy had an established history of fleeing the police. "Why violate the 4th Amendment and break the rules of Curtilage? Neither occurred because neither applied. "Why SHOOT the dog on its OWN, FORMERLY SECURED PROPERTY when they were the TRESPASSERS? Because the dog attacked. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-18 19:47:38 ET Reply Trace #35. To: Itzlzha (#32) "So, as he was, in your words, NOT a fugitive...why enter WITHOUT PERMISSION the gated yard in back?" What's your point? That they were tresspassing because they walked on a citizen's property while in the course of an official police investigation? Weren't they tresspassing when they went to the front door? Yet you have no problem with that. Now, if you want to make the argument that the back yard had a fence and a gate -- falling under the definition of curtilage -- was therefore protected by the fourth amendment, and any evidence of a crime found in the back yard was not admissable in a court of law, fine. I agree. But there was no crime and the police were not looking for evidence. ------------ -------------- By the way, the definition of curtilage also includes "the steps taken by the resident to protect the area from observation by people passing by". If this was a chain link fence meant only to contain the dog, it may not qualify. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-19 9:37:37 ET Reply Trace #36. To: Itzlzha (#32) "In your world, police can go into your back yard at will and wander around?" Police may enter the grounds of private property if they are conducting official police business, yes. Just as a U.S. mail carrier may enter the grounds of private property to deliver the mail. Or a utility company to go around back to read your electric meter. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-19 9:49:37 ET Reply Trace #37. To: JoeSnuffy (#33) "Was the daughter's boyfriend at the house where the dog was shot?" No. But the police had a tip he was. "Why did the police not search for his guy at his own house?" Perhaps they did and were told he was at his girlfriend's house. "Did they have an arrest warrant out for him?" Nope. They just wanted to talk to him. About what, I don't know. "Why do four armed cops ready to shoot someone come looking for a guy just to "question him"?" I don't understand. Are you objecting to the fact that the cops were armed? Are you objecting to the fact that they were ready to shoot? Let's assume not. This makes your question, "Why do four cops come looking for a guy just to "question him"? Ah, well that's easy. The guy had an established history of running from the cops. They needed to cover all the exits in case he bolted. robertpaulsen posted on 2010-05-19 9:58:19 ET Reply Trace So, according to this statist POS, cops can pretty much enter onto your property and murder your dog at their discretion. Per this moron's logic, if cops wanted to enter your backyard, they could walk up to your fence, pull out their weapons and shoot the dog dead in order to "protect" themselves.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#1. To: F.A. Hayek Fan (#0)
You can add your name to the title also!
Hitting the bottle early today eh?
I don't think so. I remember you posting your cowardice on this very forum because you are afraid you might get hurt. No, I wasn't drinking when I told you to add your name to the title because that is just what you are----a coward. I'm glad you at least have accepted your chains with hardly a whimper. I thank you for being honest enough to admit your cowardice. You had the audacity to claim I am a revolutionary---I stand guilty as hell. I am not a leader of men but would not be behind, but along side a real leader who wants to take this country back. Apparently you wouldn't even be behind such a leader. Now run along and may your chains not be too nuch of a burden.
You had the audacity to claim I am a revolutionary---I stand guilty as hell. I am not a leader of men but would not be behind, but along side a real leader who wants to take this country back. Apparently you wouldn't even be behind such a leader. Now run along and may your chains not be too nuch of a burden. As I remember it, you were condemning me for not making war against the federal government. I'll ask the the same question today as I asked you then, which you conveniently ran away from in your drunken stupor: where are the grave of those government personnel you've killed in the name of liberty tough guy? Until you can produce those graves, you're just a loud mouth internet tough guy who doesn't have the courage of his own convictions.
Listen you loud mouthed coward. I've stated my convictions over and over. I;m sorry but I"m a teetotaler with all my medical problems. You have a mental problem asswipe. It"s called cowardice. You think that the fed govt will just go away. That's delusional prick face. Your problem is that you are in love with yourself and afraid you might get hurt. In case you can't comprehend our situation, that is not my fault. You're just a pretty boy who never grew up and left your mother's apron strings. I've stated that I would take my place along side the patriots when the shooting starts and it is going to start. You on the other hand are a coward plain and simple. Any bug wit such as yourself will puss out when the shooting starts. You'll probably push your kids out the door to save your own sorry ass, that is if you were man enough to have kids. If you have, I hope they intelligent enough to understand their daddy is a moronic coward. I won't ask you were the bodies are that you killed in defense of our freedoms because that would be an act of ignorance. Besides, the only way you could have slain them is with your purse, that is if you weren't having your monthly. Now go and continue writing your bullshit and stay hunkered down. You might get hurt!.
Yeah I know what your convictions are. They consist of trying to talk others into attacking the government for you because you are too cowardly to do it yourself. LOL! They consist of trying to browbeat others in the hope that you will find one who is mentally unstable enough to be manipulated by you into doing something he wouldn't normally do. Hmm. That sounds familiar. Who else works that way? Hmmm. Oh yeah I got it - federal law enforcement like the FBI. So which are you, an loud mouthed drunkard and internet tough guy or an FBI stooge following standard operating procedures?
You'll have to find that out. I do know you are a pussy coward and an ignoramus. You give cowards a bad name. Just remember I'm watching you 24/7.
Talk is cheap and that's all you've got is talk, LOL! Still looking for those graves tough guy.
There are no replies to Comment # 20. End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||