Warrantless search - Rogers County

[Glocktogo]

Now's my chance? WTF does that even mean? Let me make it clear to you. I don't post things to please you and it's not my fault you can't, or don't, understand what I've said here. I post things when I want to.

FFS... I said Shaver was partly responsible for what happened that night by making poor decisions and thru poor behavioral choices. If he hadn't been drinking, and if he hadn't pointed the "gun" out the window the police wouldn't have been there and he wouldn't have been shot. How in the f**k can you even dispute that? And how in the f**k do you twist that to mean I condone Shaver being shot? Those are some Olympic-grade mental gymnastics right there...

I suppose the jury that acquitted Brailsford was part of the problem, too? They sure don't agree with your assertion Shaver was murdered. Or do jury decisions not matter to you unless you agree with them?

You seem overtly defensive in this thread overall, and particularly on the Shaver case. I'm judging your position by YOUR words. You've studiously avoided assigning any blame to the officer who murdered Shaver, or the Sgt. who was clearly incompetent and unqualified to be scene commander. Why is that? I can only assess by your words, and your explicit omissions, coupled with your reliance on the court decision, that you find no constitutional wrongdoing by them.

I'm not doing any gymnastics whatsoever. I'm simply examining your words and making a reasonable assessment of them. You don't have to like my assessment of your words, but that in no way invalidates my assessment. I believe I DO understand your words quite well, and I'm not the only one who's going to feel that way.

As for the jury that acquitted Brailsford, I regard their decision with the same level of respect as I regard the SCOTUS panel decision on Dred Scott. A huge number of American citizens agree with me. I don't know if the jurors were stupid, failed to follow court instruction, were denied evidence in the proceedings or if the prosecution was incompetent. All I know is they 100% without any reasonable doubt whatsoever, got the verdict wrong.

I've also been unfailingly consistent in that we do NOT have a "justice" system. We have a legal system and the distinction is vitally important. You're again free to disagree with me, but that would in no way invalidate my assessment.

Nothing you've posted has convinced me in any way that you hold Brailsford or his Sgt. culpable in Shaver's unjust death. You're free to state it for the record, but I don't think you will. Feel free to prove me wrong.

 

[Forgalspop]

There is a little town in Mexico that three highways intersect – highways 54, 60 & 285. This is a town with a population of less than 500 residents. They have only one cop in town. The town is only a few blocks long, with highway 54 being the main street.

There is a nice little diner right on the main drag that resembles an old fashion type diner. One day my wife and I were passing through this little town on our way from our place in New Mexico to visit friends in Roswell, NM. We decided to get a bite to eat at this diner. When we going in, we noticed the local cop had a fancy car pulled over right in front of the diner. I don’t remember if it was a Mercedes, a BMW or Lexus, I just remember it was very nice car.

The whole time we are eating and looking out the window facing the street where the cop had the car pulled over, we commented to each other, that the cop must know the people, because he still had the car pulled over when we had finished our meal.

When the waitress brought us our diner check, we commented that the cop sure had those people pulled over for a long time. She went on to tell us he does that all the time. Instead of writing tickets, most of the time he just keeps talking to the people about all sorts of subjects, such as the weather, fishing or hunting or whatever he can think of and doing in a pleasant- friendly-fashion. By detaining them so long, he knows they most likely will not speed through town again.

I found that a great way to handle things and think the local cop is a clever man.

I doubt anyone pulled over and not from that town, never speeds in Vaughn, NM or they figure out how to by-pass that little town. We have been through there several times……………I assure, I do not speed through Vaughn, NM.

Can’t say you have not been warned!

 

[Glocktogo]

I think that many here have, over their lifetime, tried to make the world a better place for themselves, their loved-ones, and even for those they do not personally know. It does not take very many kicks to the butt to reach a level of being indifferent or even downright 'jaded' towards others. The ideals that are inherent to youth do eventually fade with time and experience, leaving one wondering if they had ever actually made a difference or did they just beat their dead against a wall. Let some other 'warrior' battle the forces of evil now. For myself, I am of the same mind as OK Corgi Rancher, in that I just want to be left alone to enjoy my own life.

I don't even like people. Like, at all! Seriously, have you dealt with people? They're the worst!

Doesn't mean I'm not a good Devil's Advocate from time to time, particularly on the subject of law, "justice" and the American way.

 

[OK Corgi Rancher]

OK, GTG... At this point I'm tired of trying to explain my position to you. I can't understand it for you. I know you say you understand, but you obviously don't.

At this point I'm going to just tell you I disagree with your opinions. This is tiresome. You can hold Brailsford and his Sgt culpable all you want. I'm free to do, or not do, the same as I see fit and I don't owe you or anyone else an explanation for how I feel. I got over caring how people feel about me when I was about 14. But just because you hold them culpable doesn't amount to anything. No one cares. No one will care, except maybe for you, if I say they're culpable.

At this point this is a waste of bandwidth. I don't care how many people agree with your opinion. I don't care if no one agrees with my opinion. If you're looking for a popularity contest, you win. I concede.

Have a nice night. I have guns to talk about with someone else.

 

[Tinytim]

70s and 80s up until early 90s.

Same here

 

[Tinytim]

Also check and see how many of those studies indicated that the cueing was unintentional by the officer. "Problem" is dogs are MUCH smarter than we are and they learn what we want -- and they give it to us in exchange for the reward we give them.

Is this Chris?

 

[THAT Gurl]

Is this Chris?

Lol ... Nope ...

 

[tweetr]

Sweet! Still doesn't invalidate the fact that you have a right to submit to an administrative search in exchange for access to a federally protected area. If you want a state or local equivalent, do you feel you have a right to enter a prison or jail without being searched?

Also, flying isn't a privilege, but it's not an exclusive or enumerated right either. You can get on any commercial or charter aircraft under 12,500 pounds you want without a federally required search. If it's a Part 91 aircraft, it can be a 747 (should you have the means). But you do not have a right to enter a federally protected area without being subject to search. Think of it as a NOTAM. Do you have a right to ignore NOTAMS and fly into whatever airspace you want? National Defense Airspace? Area 51? Presidential Airspace?

No, you don't. Your "right" to fly is finite. It has restrictions. You are still free to go wherever you want without being searched (or intercepted) EXCEPT federally protected areas. No one is ever going to force you to enter those zones against your will and search you, unless you're sentenced to federal prison.

What part of this don't you understand?

Sure, you can explicitly waive a right, e.g. "I waive my right to counsel." (It's a bad idea, but you can do it!)
You may not, however, be construed implicitly to have already waived a right, e.g. a sign in a hallway stating "All persons proceeding beyond this point waive their right to counsel."

I agree flying is not an enumerated right (and check the ninth amendment for disparaging rights not enumerated); but the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is enumerated! It is not in any sense correct to state that when a person undertakes activity [X] he no longer has the right to be secure. See?

Nor is it correct to state a person has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in location [A], but has not the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in location . Merely asserting that it is so does not make it so, whether the one asserting is an individual or an agency of the government. The latter necessarily is bound by the Fourth Amendment, irrespective of activity or location. In the Fourth Amendment the person is secure in his person in all locations, because obviously his person is still his person wherever his person happens to be.

Nor does the Fourth Amendment allow any blanket warrant or authority to search without probable cause, e.g. a sign stating "All persons beyond this point are subject to search and seizure." Such explicitly violates the Fourth Amendment requirements for probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

As for "administrative searches":
If there were a separate category of "administrative searches" wherein the person does not have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, then such exception would have to exist with the Fourth Amendement itself, e.g. "The right of the people to be secure shall not be violated except during an administrative search." As such exception manifestly is not there, then if a government agency (like the TSA) wants a search without all the Fourth Amendement requirements, then it must wait until the Fourth Amendment is amended to contain such exception.

What we really are discussing is the nature of human rights. Human rights are not conferred by government; they are rather acknowledged and protected by just governments as already existing merely by virtue of being human. Human rights adhere to the person irrespective of where the person is or what he happens to be doing at the time. Ultimately we are discussing the right of the people merely to be left alone while going peaceably about their business.

Why would you want a person not secure against unreasonable search and seizure?

 

[Glocktogo]

Sure, you can explicitly waive a right, e.g. "I waive my right to counsel." (It's a bad idea, but you can do it!)
You may not, however, be construed implicitly to have already waived a right, e.g. a sign in a hallway stating "All persons proceeding beyond this point waive their right to counsel."

I agree flying is not an enumerated right (and check the ninth amendment for disparaging rights not enumerated); but the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure is enumerated! It is not in any sense correct to state that when a person undertakes activity [X] he no longer has the right to be secure. See?

Nor is it correct to state a person has the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in location [A], but has not the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure in location . Merely asserting that it is so does not make it so, whether the one asserting is an individual or an agency of the government. The latter necessarily is bound by the Fourth Amendment, irrespective of activity or location. In the Fourth Amendment the person is secure in his person in all locations, because obviously his person is still his person wherever his person happens to be.

Nor does the Fourth Amendment allow any blanket warrant or authority to search without probable cause, e.g. a sign stating "All persons beyond this point are subject to search and seizure." Such explicitly violates the Fourth Amendment requirements for probable cause and particularly describing the place to be searched and the persons or things to be seized.

As for "administrative searches":
If there were a separate category of "administrative searches" wherein the person does not have the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure, then such exception would have to exist with the Fourth Amendement itself, e.g. "The right of the people to be secure shall not be violated except during an administrative search." As such exception manifestly is not there, then if a government agency (like the TSA) wants a search without all the Fourth Amendement requirements, then it must wait until the Fourth Amendment is amended to contain such exception.

What we really are discussing is the nature of human rights. Human rights are not conferred by government; they are rather acknowledged and protected by just governments as already existing merely by virtue of being human. Human rights adhere to the person irrespective of where the person is or what he happens to be doing at the time. Ultimately we are discussing the right of the people merely to be left alone while going peaceably about their business.

Why would you want a person not secure against unreasonable search and seizure?

Simply put, your definition of “reasonable”, isn’t. Beyond that I don’t think anyone on this forum can help you. Good luck!

 

[Bocephus123]

everyone who is against the Cops and thinks they are out to get you you should become one . instead of armchair judging... you wouldn't last 5 minutes... thanks to all who serve not easy .