Equipped To Survive Equipped To Survive® Presents
The Survival Forum
Where do you want to go on ETS?

Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >
Topic Options
#234546 - 10/26/11 10:37 PM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Susan]
hikermor Offline
Geezer in Chief
Geezer

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 7705
Loc: southern Cal
Frankly, this is pretty vague stuff. Searching or entering premises without a warrant is, of course, contrary to the 4A. Misstating the reason for probable cause in order to obtain a warrant is a felony offense in most jurisdictions, to say nothing of planting evidence. As for the rest of it - citizen B would only need a half way competent lawyer to set things right.

Again, no warrant in the Las Vegas case? Probable cause? Hookers need attorneys too, and again a decent lawyer would have a field day with this one.

I certainly am not naive enough to contend that all police officers behave legally all the time, indeed, recently the LA Times has run a spate of stories that would appear to document improper practices. But it is not hard to fight back and obtain proper legal recourse. That is why there is such abundant case law in this area.

Fortunately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still works for us, nearly all the time

This strikes home for me because I have been taking training in this area to work for a local park system. Your cases sound like no brainer violations of due process and all that. Did the p[people involved even try to obtain counsel? I would think an attorney would jump at the chance to get a case like this, even pro bono...

Susan, you have the right to remain silent. If you speak, anything you say can be used against you in an ETS forum smile
_________________________
Geezer in Chief

Top
#234547 - 10/26/11 10:45 PM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: ]
hikermor Offline
Geezer in Chief
Geezer

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 7705
Loc: southern Cal
This is more an example of bad (very bad) police work, than any violation of constitutional rights. But the officers were just trying to follow their instruction from the Academy - always conduct in depth investigations.
_________________________
Geezer in Chief

Top
#234555 - 10/27/11 01:27 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Susan]
Arney Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/15/05
Posts: 2485
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Susan
It was rampant 10-15 years ago, but I haven't heard much about it lately.

It sounds like you're talking about abuse of civil asset forfeiture laws. Under criminal forfeiture, you have to be found guilty to have your assets seized. However, under civil forfeiture, you don't even have to be charged with a crime to have your cash, car, house and other property seized. And in this situation, you're guilty until you can prove those assets were acquired legally.

The agencies can sell it all off and use the proceeds to pad their own agency budgets.

Top
#234556 - 10/27/11 01:35 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: ]
Arney Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/15/05
Posts: 2485
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: IzzyJG99
What bothers me the most? My sister, a lawyer, said essentially cops are legally allowed to lie to you to trick you into incriminating yourself.

Police don't even have to lie to talk you into incriminating yourself. Anyone pulled over while driving? What is often the first thing the LEO says?

"Do you know why I pulled you over?" or "Do you know how fast you were going?" More often than not, you'll blurt out something incriminating, which the officer will dutifully record in their notes, in case you ever contest the citation in court.

"How many drinks have you had tonight, sir?" is another way to get yourself into trouble.

Top
#234560 - 10/27/11 02:02 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Arney]
hikermor Offline
Geezer in Chief
Geezer

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 7705
Loc: southern Cal
You do not have to answer any question asked of you. You do have to identify yourself- provide ID or something similar. Other than that you can respectfully remain silent and state that you will discuss things when an attorney is present. Obviously, this is hardly worthwhile unless the situation is fairly serious.

When asked, I always state that I was going at the posted speed limit.
_________________________
Geezer in Chief

Top
#234562 - 10/27/11 02:27 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Susan]
Arney Offline
Pooh-Bah

Registered: 09/15/05
Posts: 2485
Loc: California
Originally Posted By: Susan
Pity, though. America needs more jurors who are capable of thinking, rather than the ones who simply don't have anything better to do. If you were accused of a crime, which kind of juror would you want?

Careful, jury nullification cuts both ways. Back when lynchings were common, the most blatant, egregious, racist acts of violence by whites against blacks were given a pass by white juries who refused to convict fellow whites.

Today, there are minority jurors who refuse to convict minority plaintiffs accused of certain crimes like drug possesion as a protest against laws which they feel unduly penalize minorities and minority communities.

Jury nullification at work.

Top
#234564 - 10/27/11 03:31 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Arney]
Susan Offline
Geezer

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 5163
Loc: W. WA
Thank you, Arney! That's exactly what it was!

"Forfeiture laws have become increasingly popular with state and federal law enforcement officials during the last 10 years.... forfeiture has quickly become the darling of law enforcement. Since 1985, for example, the total value of federal asset seizures has increased over 1,500 percent--to over $2.4 billion,(1) including over $643 million for the Department of Justice in FY 1991 alone.(2) This bonanza for law enforcement officials, however, has become a Kafkaesque nightmare for some property owners, who have found themselves caught up in a world of bizarre legal doctrine, sometimes without the assets even to defend themselves."

My point is that IF these cases went to court, jury nullification would be the perfect way to eliminate it. And that's probably WHY these cases don't go to court. But since they don't, the government continues to do it.

Quote:
Careful, jury nullification cuts both ways.


Of course! So name something that doesn't!

Quote:
there are minority jurors who refuse to convict minority plaintiffs accused of certain crimes like drug possesion as a protest against laws which they feel unduly penalize minorities and minority communities.


Do you think it would be better or worse if you left race out of it? There are WHITE jurors who refuse to convict MINORITIES for drug possession, because they think it is a stupid law. How do you feel about that?

Many people think that the current drug laws mimic the previous Prohibition Law, and they don't (another fallacy perpetuated by Hollywood). When alcohol was the Dreaded Evil of the day, only the makers and sellers were charged, NOT the drinkers.

How much of your tax money subsidizes this crap?

Sue

Top
#234565 - 10/27/11 03:58 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: hikermor]
Susan Offline
Geezer

Registered: 01/21/04
Posts: 5163
Loc: W. WA
Quote:
citizen B would only need a half way competent lawyer to set things right.


In the Las Vegas case, the hooker was pregnant by the guy the cops killed. With a case like that, she had no problem finding an attorney, and they DID have a field day! So did the media. It was front-page news for weeks. grin I believe the ACLU was also involved. The settlement was a million dollars for the child. I think chief of police stepped down, but I doubt they found him guilty of anything, as mostly they don't in those cases. Esp in a city like LV.

Quote:
But it is not hard to fight back and obtain proper legal recourse.


When the law confiscates your assets, it can limit how much you can fight. How do you pay your attorney? And since no criminal charges are filed against the citizen, I believe he is the one who has to instigate the charges -- it's not a defense case, so is he entitled to a court-appointed attorney? And if the judge (the cops don't act alone, you know) limits what can be offered as evidence, and gives specific instructions to the jury as to what they can and cannot do/think/ask/decide, do you think there would be a guaranteed outcome?

Quote:
Fortunately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still works for us, nearly all the time


And it's an uphill battle all the way! We have a government that has been 'interpreting', re-interpreting, debating, twisting, choking, complicating, evading and circumventing the meaning of a very simple, very straightforeward document. I heard somewhere that Abraham Lincoln was one of the first to do this, and he was followed by a stampeding herd who thought it was a great idea.

Hikermor, I truly wish it was more like you see it. And I wish more people in law enforcement saw it the same way.

Sue

Top
#234568 - 10/27/11 04:33 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Susan]
Richlacal Offline
Old Hand

Registered: 02/11/10
Posts: 778
Loc: Los Angeles, CA
How was it said? "A government that can give you anything you want,Is Powerful enough to take everything you've got!"


Edited by Richlacal (10/27/11 04:34 AM)
Edit Reason: typo error

Top
#234572 - 10/27/11 05:42 AM Re: Unwanted fame [Re: Susan]
hikermor Offline
Geezer in Chief
Geezer

Registered: 08/26/06
Posts: 7705
Loc: southern Cal
Originally Posted By: Susan


Quote:
Fortunately, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights still works for us, nearly all the time


And it's an uphill battle all the way! We have a government that has been 'interpreting', re-interpreting, debating, twisting, choking, complicating, evading and circumventing the meaning of a very simple, very straightforeward document. I heard somewhere that Abraham Lincoln was one of the first to do this, and he was followed by a stampeding herd who thought it was a great idea.

Hikermor, I truly wish it was more like you see it. And I wish more people in law enforcement saw it the same way.

Sue


I can guarantee you that all this reinterpretation works very much to protect citizens - take Miranda warnings as an example. Police must be very careful in their actions during investigations and subsequent actions. The usual consequence of, say, an unlawful search, is exclusion from the prosecution of whatever evidence was obtained - to the great benefit of the defense. And case law working out the precise actions allowable under the Bill of Rights started well before Lincoln and will continue indefinitely. You might be referring to the Fourteenth Amendment, which extended the protections of the BOR more broadly.

We certainly aren't perfect, and our legal system isn't perfect - one obvious flaw is the necessity of large amounts of money to realistically have a chance at truly equal justice - but can you name another existing system which is better?
_________________________
Geezer in Chief

Top
Page 6 of 7 < 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 >



Moderator:  Alan_Romania, Blast, chaosmagnet, cliff 
March
Su M Tu W Th F Sa
1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30
31
Who's Online
0 registered (), 324 Guests and 6 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
GallenR, Jeebo, NicholasMarshall, Yadav, BenFoakes
5367 Registered Users
Newest Posts
What did you do today to prepare?
by dougwalkabout
Yesterday at 11:21 PM
Zippo Butane Inserts
by dougwalkabout
Yesterday at 11:11 PM
Question about a "Backyard Mutitool"
by Ren
03/17/24 01:00 AM
Problem in my WhatsApp configuration
by Chisel
03/09/24 01:55 PM
New Madrid Seismic Zone
by Jeanette_Isabelle
03/04/24 02:44 PM
EDC Reduction
by EchoingLaugh
03/02/24 04:12 PM
Using a Compass Without a Map
by KenK
02/28/24 12:22 AM
Newest Images
Tiny knife / wrench
Handmade knives
2"x2" Glass Signal Mirror, Retroreflective Mesh
Trade School Tool Kit
My Pocket Kit
Glossary
Test

WARNING & DISCLAIMER: SELECT AND USE OUTDOORS AND SURVIVAL EQUIPMENT, SUPPLIES AND TECHNIQUES AT YOUR OWN RISK. Information posted on this forum is not reviewed for accuracy and may not be reliable, use at your own risk. Please review the full WARNING & DISCLAIMER about information on this site.