cavanami Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Too bad the US gov has scrapped the Constitution...as there is a phrase about "cruel and unusual punishment" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 More CS rants. I've said a while back that law enforcement are now used as a revenue generating agency than a 'serve and protect' agency using the LAPD's motto. That motto really ought to be changed. The woman in this link got a $835 ticket on her car for illegaly parking on grass. The asst. city attorney for this small city arrogantly and smugly talks about it as a legitmate deterrent for people to park there because the $15 fines before didn't stop it. What a dick. http://news.yahoo.com/video/politics-15749652/835-parking-ticket-leaves-woman-furious-25211337 I know a guy who got a ticket for no motorcycle liscense, no registration, no title, no insurance for a 49cc moped. He was fined almost $1000.00 and they suspended his driver's liscense. The laws says you don't need a motorcycle liscense, don't need to register nor obtain a title for a scooter 49cc or smaller. Figure it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Too bad the US gov has scrapped the Constitution...as there is a phrase about "cruel and unusual punishment" Hmmm.... makes sense. I got to remember that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cavanami Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Big Ben exposed...again!!! Refuses to answer questions while at a hi-so party... 4AcpznV4RGY Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Remember the "speed traps" in small towns in Mississippi and Gerogia? Traffic lights had only red and green - no in between. Cops would sit there and wait for cars with out-of-state licences to be caught by the red. Then the drivers were hauled off to be fined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 As you are well aware I don't trust the governmnt for sh*t. Just saying that could put me on the no fly list (imagine that, free speech, a crime). With regards to this Bilderberg thingy, I've not heard of it before and wiki'd it as well as some other sites. Interesting to say the least. Assuming it has some veracity, then it makes Obama part of it as well then doesn't it? He was an outside in the primary so assuming it has some legs, it makes him part of the 'establishment' which being President automatically makes you one could say, right? I wonder if its possible to become President and remain a maverick? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Court: No right to resist illegal police entry into home INDIANAPOLIS - Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. [color:red]In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.[/color] "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." [color:red]David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.[/color] The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment. When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him. . . . Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Even if the officer thought she was saying not needed under duress, its always regarded as that there is nothing he can do about it more than offer her a business card and warn the husband. Your home has no sanctity anymore. I continue to say we don't have any rights anymore. The local, state and federal governments in some cases like privacy, violate it routinely where its common and then in court cases have the balls to say we have no expectation of privacy because the state has been violating it routinely to the point where its common so we already know they will. Confused? Its complete and utter BS and I honestly do believe we're at the point now where EVERY word I've just written is in some data bank somewhere as well as my ISP and when I turn up at an airport or apply for some government job if I ever do, there will be some unknown reason for denial. The republic is almost over and the vast majority of us are lemmings who only support those that will keep the status quo...and that is both parties. Even something that started out as an independent idea like the tea party has been usurped. Surprised at the speed it was done by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bangkoktraveler Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Court: No right to resist illegal police entry into home INDIANAPOLIS - Overturning a common law dating back to the English Magna Carta of 1215, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Thursday that Hoosiers have no right to resist unlawful police entry into their homes. [color:red]In a 3-2 decision, Justice Steven David writing for the court said if a police officer wants to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, a homeowner cannot do anything to block the officer's entry.[/color] "We believe ... a right to resist an unlawful police entry into a home is against public policy and is incompatible with modern Fourth Amendment jurisprudence," David said. "We also find that allowing resistance unnecessarily escalates the level of violence and therefore the risk of injuries to all parties involved without preventing the arrest." [color:red]David said a person arrested following an unlawful entry by police still can be released on bail and has plenty of opportunities to protest the illegal entry through the court system.[/color] The court's decision stems from a Vanderburgh County case in which police were called to investigate a husband and wife arguing outside their apartment. When the couple went back inside their apartment, the husband told police they were not needed and blocked the doorway so they could not enter. When an officer entered anyway, the husband shoved the officer against a wall. A second officer then used a stun gun on the husband and arrested him. . . . Link A person can get bail? In Arizona they will be properly toe tagged in many cases. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted May 14, 2011 Report Share Posted May 14, 2011 Don't object to illegal uncosntitutional police invasions of your home, because you can get bail and pay a lawyer thousands to take them to court. This is sort of like saying you shouldn't try to keep criminals from stealing everything you own, because you can always try to get it back later. What were these judges smoking? The fourth amendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, [color:red]shall not be violated[/color], and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." What part of this don't the judges understand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now