• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A very sad day.

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
You have the right to call one of the violator's cop friends to complain about his buddy.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
That doesn't have a good history here.
Charges Reduced Against Drunk Cop : Dispatches from the Culture Wars
Remember the Indianapolis cop who ran into three motorcycles that were parked, killing two people and critically injuring another while drunk on duty? The charges have been dropped against him for a rather convenient reason. Balko reports:
Prosecutors initially filed a host of DWI-related charges against Bisard. But on August 19, Marion County Prosecutor Carl Brizzi announced he had no choice but to drop the most serious charges because Bisard's blood had been drawn by an uncertified lab tech. And because none of Brisard's fellow officers apparently noticed his intoxication at the scene of the accident, there was no admissible evidence that Brisard was drunk when he caused the crash.
You can call, but they will cover each others backs.
 

Father Heathen

Veteran Member
Law enforcement always seems to be rife with corruption and misconduct, and society looks the other way and worships them as heroes.
 

Engyo

Prince of Dorkness!
Law enforcement always seems to be rife with corruption and misconduct, and society looks the other way and worships them as heroes.
I'd guess that the percentage of cops who are either corrupt or misuse their authority isn't a whole lot greater than in the population as a whole, but I don't know how one could test or verify that guess.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
That flat doesn't make sense.

Any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible.
 

fallingblood

Agnostic Theist
The state could always make a federal case about it. Federal law supersedes state law, thus it is still illegal to unlawfully enter in a home. It may be a state law; however, it really has little backing it since federal law forbids the act.

Thus, is someone would enter into your home unlawfully, you could make a federal case against it, and it would pretty much be a clear cut case.
 
A

angellous_evangellous

Guest
The state could always make a federal case about it. Federal law supersedes state law, thus it is still illegal to unlawfully enter in a home. It may be a state law; however, it really has little backing it since federal law forbids the act.

Thus, is someone would enter into your home unlawfully, you could make a federal case against it, and it would pretty much be a clear cut case.

If they can wipe the cop off the wall.
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
That flat doesn't make sense.
Any evidence obtained illegally is inadmissible.
But legally planted evidence is admissible.

The state could always make a federal case about it. Federal law supersedes state law, thus it is still illegal to unlawfully enter in a home. It may be a state law; however, it really has little backing it since federal law forbids the act.

Thus, is someone would enter into your home unlawfully, you could make a federal case against it, and it would pretty much be a clear cut case.
The feds don't care about such trifles.
 

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
We used to have some redress from government intrusions on privacy and erosion of civil rights. The courts used to rule against the police and FBI. Papers used to report government excess.
Recently, however, government does as it wills, courts support them and the "fourth estate" ignores it --a perfect storm.

Can you spell: p-o-l-i-c-e s-t-a-t-e?
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist
We need a healthy balance between the right to privacy on our private property and safety concerns. For instance, if suspicious cries are heard, such as the possibility of child or spousal abuse, the police should not need a warrant. However, if that is not the case, the police should be required to first seek a warrant.

Can you spell: p-o-l-i-c-e s-t-a-t-e?

Can you spell h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e?
 

Revoltingest

Pragmatic Libertarian
Premium Member
We need a healthy balance between the right to privacy on our private property and safety concerns. For instance, if suspicious cries are heard, such as the possibility of child or spousal abuse, the police should not need a warrant. However, if that is not the case, the police should be required to first seek a warrant.
Sounds good to me.

Can you spell h-y-p-e-r-b-o-l-e?
Yes...I can now.


An article of interest....
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/05/25/2011-05-25_cops_fixed_summonses_for_arod.html
 
Last edited:

Valjean

Veteran Member
Premium Member
Where such a "healthy balance" lies is the issue. Americans seem to be afraid of their own shadows. To compensate they militarise, In militarising they antagonise and threaten.
They create the very threats they fear.
 

Amill

Apikoros
So now they can basically just make one broad law stating that it's illegal to resist a police officer anywhere at anytime no matter what they are doing. Nice.

And the article said something about reducing violence in these entry situations. I really doubt anything is going to change. I mean physically resisting an officer's entry made you likely to be arrested even before it was officially made "illegal". What makes them think the violence will now decrease?

Before law:
Officers attempt to enter home, use stun gun on the resister then arrests them.
After new law:
Officers attempt to enter home, use stun gun on the resister then arrests them.
 

Darkness

Psychoanalyst/Marxist

I do not even like A-Rod. I can see for Jeter or Mariano. ;)

Where such a "healthy balance" lies is the issue. Americans seem to be afraid of their own shadows. To compensate they militarise, In militarising they antagonise and threaten.
They create the very threats they fear.

Defense outlays in the United States are quite low for our history. Most of the expansion is due to growing productivity (i.e. an expanding economy) that allows are military to maintain parity with the value of the economy.

UnitedStatesDefenseOutlays1940-2012.png
 
Top