Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Vault
Time Travel Schematics
T.E.C. Time Archive
The Why Files
Have You Seen...?
Chronovisor
TimeTravelForum.tk
TimeTravelForum.net
ParanormalNetwork.net
Paranormalis.com
ConspiracyCafe.net
Streams
Live streams
Featured streams
Multi-Viewer
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John's talk about home searches
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Judge Bean" data-source="post: 12852" data-attributes="member: 42"><p><strong>John's talk about home searches</strong></p><p></p><p><em><strong>The Right to be Free of Government Intrusion</strong></em></p><p></p><p><span style="font-size: 10px"><em>"Two officers? boarded a bus bound from Miami to Atlanta during a stopover? Eyeing the passengers, the officers, admittedly without articulable suspicion, picked out the? passenger and asked to inspect his ticket and identification. The ticket? matched the? identification and both were immediately returned to him as unremarkable. However, the two police officers persisted and explained their presence as narcotics agents on the lookout for illegal drugs. In pursuit of that aim, they then requested [his] consent to search his luggage??</em></span></p><p></p><p>and perhaps you know how it ended, in order for it to end up in the Supreme Court. In many cases, due to the excessive number of criminal laws, it is possible to pick out potential defendants in a busload of passengers, and push it until it bears fruit. The ?investigation? is not based on either probable cause, or its weaker cousin, reasonable suspicion, so the question devolves to whether it was an actual ?seizure,? or only a passing ?detention,? or, even more innocuous and commonplace (and thus all the more dangerous to rights) a ?consensual stop? for purposes of identification. </p><p></p><p>Depending upon the circumstances, too, at this point in the slow destruction of the Amendment occurring in the courts, an officer can stop a person on the street for no reason, depending upon the late hour and character of the neighborhood; can arrest a driver for failing to provide identification; and can search and seize at will and worry about the paperwork later.</p><p></p><p>There are, in addition to technical exemptions to the rule, a set of ?exigent circumstances,? under which an officer (e.g., in a place where he has the right to be and seeing evidence of a bad in plain view) operates completely outside of the law in order to enforce the penal code. Far more defendants are convicted on technicalities than, under the old saw, ?gotten off on technicalities? by fancy defense attorneys.</p><p></p><p>Under the present state of the law, it is possible for paramilitary units of ?police? to scramble and descend into a targeted residential block, wearing kevlar and paratroop boots, and toting machineguns and grenades, and detain and interrogate anyone found in one of the houses on the block or walking down the sidewalk. Compare this to Justice Douglas holding in an old ?loitering? case that Americans had the fundamental right to wander aimlessly.</p><p></p><p>Under an only slightly-altered state of the law, local and federal officers, in combination with U.S. military, can decide that an entire section of a city is a threat to public safety, and descend into it and arrest and transport anyone found there. If a city suffers a terrorist attack, or an attack the source of which cannot be readily determined, persons would be collected and detained without the protections of the Fourth Amendment at the discretion of the military. That may be the day that a great many people understand that the Fourth is not an amendment designed or adapted to use for the benefit of ?criminals? only.</p><p></p><p>It continues the theme of privacy initiated in the previous amendment, and is this time addressed to the civil authorities. Reflect on other regimes in history in which the civil authorities have set up their own police forces to protect the interests of the sovereign, requiring domestic spying and bullying. </p><p></p><p>Who benefits from encouraging citizens to be suspicious and wary of one another; from encouraging some to consider themselves morally superior to others, and thus better entitled to rights; from encouraging tough law enforcement as a means of correcting the problem of drugs and repeat offenders? Who benefits from turning citizens against one another? For a people preoccupied with selfdestruction and imprisonment of their neighbors will have no time or attention to devote to selfgovernance.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Judge Bean, post: 12852, member: 42"] [b]John's talk about home searches[/b] [i][b]The Right to be Free of Government Intrusion[/b][/i] [SIZE=2][i]"Two officers? boarded a bus bound from Miami to Atlanta during a stopover? Eyeing the passengers, the officers, admittedly without articulable suspicion, picked out the? passenger and asked to inspect his ticket and identification. The ticket? matched the? identification and both were immediately returned to him as unremarkable. However, the two police officers persisted and explained their presence as narcotics agents on the lookout for illegal drugs. In pursuit of that aim, they then requested [his] consent to search his luggage??[/i][/SIZE] and perhaps you know how it ended, in order for it to end up in the Supreme Court. In many cases, due to the excessive number of criminal laws, it is possible to pick out potential defendants in a busload of passengers, and push it until it bears fruit. The ?investigation? is not based on either probable cause, or its weaker cousin, reasonable suspicion, so the question devolves to whether it was an actual ?seizure,? or only a passing ?detention,? or, even more innocuous and commonplace (and thus all the more dangerous to rights) a ?consensual stop? for purposes of identification. Depending upon the circumstances, too, at this point in the slow destruction of the Amendment occurring in the courts, an officer can stop a person on the street for no reason, depending upon the late hour and character of the neighborhood; can arrest a driver for failing to provide identification; and can search and seize at will and worry about the paperwork later. There are, in addition to technical exemptions to the rule, a set of ?exigent circumstances,? under which an officer (e.g., in a place where he has the right to be and seeing evidence of a bad in plain view) operates completely outside of the law in order to enforce the penal code. Far more defendants are convicted on technicalities than, under the old saw, ?gotten off on technicalities? by fancy defense attorneys. Under the present state of the law, it is possible for paramilitary units of ?police? to scramble and descend into a targeted residential block, wearing kevlar and paratroop boots, and toting machineguns and grenades, and detain and interrogate anyone found in one of the houses on the block or walking down the sidewalk. Compare this to Justice Douglas holding in an old ?loitering? case that Americans had the fundamental right to wander aimlessly. Under an only slightly-altered state of the law, local and federal officers, in combination with U.S. military, can decide that an entire section of a city is a threat to public safety, and descend into it and arrest and transport anyone found there. If a city suffers a terrorist attack, or an attack the source of which cannot be readily determined, persons would be collected and detained without the protections of the Fourth Amendment at the discretion of the military. That may be the day that a great many people understand that the Fourth is not an amendment designed or adapted to use for the benefit of ?criminals? only. It continues the theme of privacy initiated in the previous amendment, and is this time addressed to the civil authorities. Reflect on other regimes in history in which the civil authorities have set up their own police forces to protect the interests of the sovereign, requiring domestic spying and bullying. Who benefits from encouraging citizens to be suspicious and wary of one another; from encouraging some to consider themselves morally superior to others, and thus better entitled to rights; from encouraging tough law enforcement as a means of correcting the problem of drugs and repeat offenders? Who benefits from turning citizens against one another? For a people preoccupied with selfdestruction and imprisonment of their neighbors will have no time or attention to devote to selfgovernance. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Time Travel Forum
John Titor's Legacy
John's talk about home searches
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top