A new prank called SWATting allows police to search and seize.

[phill4paul]

http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20090201/ap_on_hi_te/tec911_swatting

Tony Messina, a construction worker from Salina, N.Y., was swatted three times by the gang broken up by the federal authorities in Dallas. He was even arrested as the result of one call, because authorities found weapons he wasn't supposed to have while they were searching the house.

 

[TastyWheat]

It's worse than that. Because of Herring vs. United States (Supreme Court ruling) evidence collected from an "botched search" is perfectly admissible in court. If you work in an office setting you know clerical and typographic errors happen all the time. How hard would it be to understand the police "mistakenly" raiding the wrong house and discovering a few ounces of pot, an unregistered firearm, and 5 or more dildos (yes, that's a crime here). One little mistake and an otherwise law-abiding citizen spends the next few years in jail.

 

[Zuras]

One little mistake and a criminal spends the next few years in jail.

^
^
^
Fixed.

I'm sure the local PD is consipring, at this very moment, to sift through your Sylvia Saint porn collection.

 

[amy31416]

^
^
^
Fixed.

I'm sure the local PD is consipring, at this very moment, to sift through your Sylvia Saint porn collection.

So, I gather that you're for people being jailed when an illegal/mistaken search takes place?

You're in the wrong place if I interpreted that correctly.

 

[Zuras]

So, I gather that you're for people being jailed when an illegal/mistaken search takes place?

You're in the wrong place if I interpreted that correctly.

If it was a legitimate mistake, and a crime you are convicted of via a jury of your peers, yes. If it was not a legitimate mistake, then any evidence found would not be be admissible, at which point the DA will not prosecute the case. These things are already accounted for in our laws.

Let's say a cop is chasing after a fleeing suspect and accidentally knocks down and trip over some guy. The guy falls down and out from his coat drops a bag of coke, a sheet of acid, an illegal firearm. Are YOU saying the policeman should not arrest this peson, and they should not be tried for their cimes? And what of property rights, then? Say I got "SWAT"ed and by mistake the cops break down my door and they confiscate all my illegal dildos. Should I also not be tried AND given my property back? And then will that be entrapment for when they arrest me on the spot for taking the material? Give me a break.

 

[RSLudlum]

LEt's say a cop is chasing after a fleeing suspect and accidentally knocks down and trip over some guy. The guy falls down and out from his coat drops a bag of coke, a sheet of acid, an illegal firearm. Are YOU saying the policeman should not arrest this peson, and they should not be tried for their cimes?

you're not going to get anywhere here using that kind of 'evidence' in your arguement

 

[Zuras]

you're not going to get anywhere here using that kind of 'evidence' in your arguement

Ya, I debated on using those examples but found it the most realistic scenario. Some of these ppsychos here feel nothing short of murder is illegal, and in the case of murder policemen are only entilted to presumption of guilt until proven guilty.

 

[amy31416]

If it was a legitimate mistake, and a crime you are convicted of via a jury of your peers, yes. If it was not a legitimate mistake, then any evidence found would not be be admissible, at which point the DA will not prosecute the case. These things are already accounted for in our laws.

Let's say a cop is chasing after a fleeing suspect and accidentally knocks down and trip over some guy. The guy falls down and out from his coat drops a bag of coke, a sheet of acid, an illegal firearm. Are YOU saying the policeman should not arrest this peson, and they should not be tried for their cimes? And what of property rights, then? Say I got "SWAT"ed and by mistake the cops break down my door and they confiscate all my illegal dildos. Should I also not be tried AND given my property back? And then will that be entrapment for when they arrest me on the spot for taking the material? Give me a break.

Given your scenario, yeah, that person should not be arrested. The only way I might disagree is if a severed body part dropped out of his coat.

And no, I don't think you should have all your illegal dildos confiscated, nor do I think you should be tried for possessing such items. In fact, I think you should sue the fuck out of the SWAT team/authority for violating your privacy.

Although I doubt your heart and mind are in the right place, consider the fact that those who are in power can contrive any situation they would like and can manufacture any situation they'd like--if you don't want any protection from that sort of thing, you're a complete stooge.

I don't say this too often, but you're looking a bit trolly to actually be someone who understands or likes the type of government Ron Paul promotes. I'm callin' it here and now.

 

[devil21]

Zuras is our newest resident Jack Booted Thug. Approach accordingly. Check out his defense of the SF BART killer pig in another thread for reference.

 

[Zuras]

Given your scenario, yeah, that person should not be arrested. The only way I might disagree is if a severed body part dropped out of his coat.

Oh, but why a body part and not the M-16 with an under-barrel RPG? The body part suggests he may have done something wrong, but so does the M-16. There are no situations where an RPG mounted M-16 is legal on a civilian. The funny part is under certain circumstances a severed body part could legitimately be perfectly harmless. In fact, there are no laws against carry a severed limb. The hypocrisy lies within your twisted logic, no doubt.

In fact, I think you should sue the fuck out of the SWAT team/authority for violating your privacy.

Congratualtions. You are in a country where you are lucky enough to do just that.
Since there are personal rights laws law enforcement must abide by, just as YOU must abide by our other laws.

Although I doubt your heart and mind are in the right place, consider the fact that those who are in power can contrive any situation they would like and can manufacture any situation they'd like--if you don't want any protection from that sort of thing, you're a complete stooge.

I don't say this too often, but you're looking a bit trolly to actually be someone who understands or likes the type of government Ron Paul promotes. I'm callin' it here and now.

Last I checked, Ron Paul was not an anarchist.

 

[amy31416]

Oh, but why a body part and not the M-16 with an under-barrel RPG? The body part suggests he may have done something wrong, but so does the M-16. The funnypart is under certain circumstances a severed body part could legitimately be perfectly harmless. There are no situations where an RPG mounted M-16 is legal on a civilian. The hypocrisy lies within your twisted logic, no doubt.




Congratualtions. You are in a country where you are lucky enough to do just that.
Since there are personal rights laws law enforcement must obide by, just as YOU must abide by our other laws.



Last I checked, Ron Paul was not an anarchist.

Point 1: Can't think of too many scenarios where carrying around a body part is legal or justifiable, unless you're a very poor coroner. Don't be ridiculous. Oh, as far as the M-16 goes, check out the 2nd Amendment sweetie.

Point 2: It seems that you disagree with private citizens having rights, I don't. Let's agree to disagree.

Point 3: I am not an anarchist, nor did I allude to such a philosophy.

 

[RSLudlum]

The problem is that those substances are "illegal" right now and if RP is for a 'lawful' society then there is cause for arrest by law enforcement's twisted morality and logic. It does suck but just like DiLorenzo always says "It doesn't matter if the income tax is illegal or unconstitutional; they have the guns" and the ultimate judgement for you, as an individual, is death by their use of force.


Just by reading Zuras replies (although, I understand his arguements) you can tell there is a huge amount of 're-education' that needs to be done to change the laws before anybody that seeks to be in the position of enforcing laws understands the immorality of victimizing people that have caused no harm to others. Given how far individuals in this country have strayed from the idea of freedom, it is a HUGE task at hand to convince them otherwise esp. when many are HOPING the gov't does something, instead of taking action on their own part.

 

[sidster]

Point 1: Can't think of too many scenarios where carrying around a body part is legal or justifiable, unless you're a very poor coroner. Don't be ridiculous. Oh, as far as the M-16 goes, check out the 2nd Amendment sweetie.

Point 2: It seems that you disagree with private citizens having rights, I don't. Let's agree to disagree.

Point 3: I am not an anarchist, nor did I allude to such a philosophy.

don't feed the troll

 

[Anti Federalist]

If it was a legitimate mistake, and a crime you are convicted of via a jury of your peers, yes.

And how would you determine what was a "legitimate mistake" versus a deliberate mistake on the part of the cops?

By that logic, any person, place or thing can be searched or seized, with no probable cause whatsoever, at any time, simply by making a "whoopsie" on the paperwork.

 

[amy31416]

don't feed the troll

Ooooookay.

 

[Zuras]

Point 1: Can't think of too many scenarios where carrying around a body part is legal or justifiable, unless you're a very poor coroner. Don't be ridiculous. Oh, as far as the M-16 goes, check out the 2nd Amendment sweetie.

You can't? Hah. I and about half a dozen A&P students, along with two lab instructors and one assistant professor actually had to move several cadavers and numerous individual human bodyparts approximately half a mile away, from one building on campus to another.

Point 2: It seems that you disagree with private citizens having rights, I don't. Let's agree to disagree.

Point 3: I am not an anarchist, nor did I allude to such a philosophy.

Au contraire. The last position you took was clearly echoing of an anarchist mindset. Since any hierarchical allotment of power lends itself to such possibility of abuse that only doing completely away with it and the state which supports it is abolished. Strangely an anarchist that wants to make things illegal that even currently aren't illegal, like carrying human remains. Hmm. You are simply confused and illogical.

 

[Zuras]

And how would you determine what was a "legitimate mistake" versus a deliberate mistake on the part of the cops?

By that logic, any person, place or thing can be searched or seized, with no probable cause whatsoever, at any time, simply by making a "whoopsie" on the paperwork.

Let me introduce you to an entire branch of government, the Judicial.

 

[Anti Federalist]

Let me introduce you to an entire branch of government, the Judicial.

Oh, yeah, those guys.

The same people, that, at my last count, had to release 200 plus innocent people from death row that had been put there, in many cases, by corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges?

Oh yeah, and where's my information that states Oscar Grant was armed?

 

[amy31416]

You can't? Hah. I and about half a dozen A&P students, along with two lab instructors and one assistant professor actually had to move several cadavers and numerous individual human bodyparts approximately half a mile away, from one building on campus to another.





Au contraire. The last position you took was clearly echoing of an anarchist mindset. Since any hierarchical allotment of power lends itself to such possibility of abuse that only doing completely away with it and the state which supports it is abolished. Strangely an anarchist that wants to make things illegal that even currently aren't illegal, like carrying human remains. Hmm. You are simply confused and illogical.

I was pre-med before I switched to chemistry. I will bet you everything I have that not a single one of us was walking around town with body parts in our coat.

It's neat when people make things up to support their arguments.

I'm not confused or illogical, I have common sense. If someone is knocked over and a body part falls out of their coat, it's obvious a crime may have occurred, though not a certainty. Surely you just think you're being clever to argue with me over that.

It's a nonsensical argument that I'm for anarchy, by the way-you offer no real examples. And I never said I wanted to make it illegal to carry human remains, though I must admit I've never given it much thought, but I think you should have to explain why you're carrying around Joe's torso if you happen to be discovered with it. Should you have to explain why you have a joint or are carrying around cocaine if someone comes across it? No. If you really need an explanation for the difference, I can give you one, but I guarantee you that I will be condescending.

I think that most anyone here can attest that I'm not an anarchist, even if they condemn me for feeding the trolls. Sorry Sid!

 

[Zuras]

Oh, yeah, those guys.

The same people, that, at my last count, had to release 200 plus innocent people from death row that had been put there, in many cases, by corrupt cops, prosecutors and judges?

I'm sure you have a better form of government, right? I'll take the vowel A. Sajak

Oh yeah, and where's my information that states Oscar Grant was armed?

Hmm? I'm not sure what you are talking about, but I'm quite sure you wouldn't find it in the communist rags you read online and cite for sources.