Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So what would you do with a suspect like that? Provide him with constitutional protections or not? Well?
So what would you do with a suspect like that? Provide him with constitutional protections or not? Well?
I am a strong believer in the ancient legal principle that one is GUILTY until proven Innocent in a court of law. In many cases I wouldn't even give people that opportunity, if there is obviously no reasonable potential of them being Innocent (ie... caught with the illegal substance or stolen goods in their possession).
So you must feel that police officers never make a mistake. Of course, if that were true, then your ancient legal principle might be worth something. Sadly, it is not.
So you must feel that police officers never make a mistake. Of course, if that were true, then your ancient legal principle might be worth something. Sadly, it is not.
They're not perfect, but they're right a vast majority of the time; and since I don't believe there's a truly Innocent person over the age of 5 in this entire country, if not the entire world, the police get much more than just the benefit of the doubt from me.
What you propose is Napoleonic Law and is anathema to our entire system.
Fuck that shit. I'd rather see 99 guilty people go free than see 1 innocent person go to jail.
The question which is being ignored in this thread is do we as a society founded on the bedrocks of personal liberty and freedom from government oppression wish to allow our police to subject a citizen to warrantless home invasion because some police officer suspects that he/she might be smoking marijuana in the privacy and supposed sancitity of his/her home?
I fear younger generations of Americans might be more receptive to such abusive disregard of the Fourth Amendment because they have never lived in the America where such contempt for the most basic principles Constitutional Liberty and Freedom was unthinkable. But I have clear recollection of a time when the police would not dare to break into a citizen's home without a clear and unavoidable need to do so -- and it was not that long ago.
For me, the very idea that the police would force entry into someone's home because they believe that person is smoking marijuana is insulting. It affords our contemporary police the same level of authority as possessed by the British Regulars over the Colonials in pre-Revolution America. And this abusive practice was in fact one of the more prominent motivations for the Revolution.
I think police should have a warrant every single time they enter a home, and that the exceptions to this should require both compelling evidence and a demonstrated danger to life or limb of a human being. Destruction of evidence would not meet that test, but hearing someone screaming would. That would still result in mistakes and abuse, but it would be severely limited.
Except that opens up too many doors for other shit. For instance, what's next some guy cooking meth objects because an LEO walking by caught the odor of meth cooking and forced his way into the home to find his meth lab?
Now should LEO use discretion ? Of course they should. There is a HUGE difference between smelling someone lighting up a fat one, and smelling someone cooking up a batch of meth or hearing someone beat the shit out of their old lady.
So, the ruling is correct but the application of it should be limited.
I think police should have a warrant every single time they enter a home, and that the exceptions to this should require both compelling evidence and a demonstrated danger to life or limb of a human being. Destruction of evidence would not meet that test, but hearing someone screaming would. That would still result in mistakes and abuse, but it would be severely limited.
Except that opens up too many doors for other shit. For instance, what's next some guy cooking meth objects because an LEO walking by caught the odor of meth cooking and forced his way into the home to find his meth lab?
Now should LEO use discretion ? Of course they should. There is a HUGE difference between smelling someone lighting up a fat one, and smelling someone cooking up a batch of meth or hearing someone beat the shit out of their old lady.
So, the ruling is correct but the application of it should be limited.
Maybe you should read what I said again.
By the way, no cop in his right mind ever forces his way into a meth lab. Even SWAT doesn't do that, the potential for them, and the entire neighborhood, getting killed is unacceptable.
Except that opens up too many doors for other shit. For instance, what's next some guy cooking meth objects because an LEO walking by caught the odor of meth cooking and forced his way into the home to find his meth lab?
Now should LEO use discretion ? Of course they should. There is a HUGE difference between smelling someone lighting up a fat one, and smelling someone cooking up a batch of meth or hearing someone beat the shit out of their old lady.
So, the ruling is correct but the application of it should be limited.
Maybe you should read what I said again.
By the way, no cop in his right mind ever forces his way into a meth lab. Even SWAT doesn't do that, the potential for them, and the entire neighborhood, getting killed is unacceptable.
meth labs was just an example and you know it.
There are SOME LEOs who will kick open doors leading to meth labs
The question which is being ignored in this thread is do we as a society founded on the bedrocks of personal liberty and freedom from government oppression wish to allow our police to subject a citizen to warrantless home invasion because some police officer suspects that he/she might be smoking marijuana in the privacy and supposed sancitity of his/her home? .
Maybe you should read what I said again.
By the way, no cop in his right mind ever forces his way into a meth lab. Even SWAT doesn't do that, the potential for them, and the entire neighborhood, getting killed is unacceptable.
meth labs was just an example and you know it.
There are SOME LEOs who will kick open doors leading to meth labs
I know, but are you going to argue that any of them are in their right minds? If so, I have a bridge I no longer need that I would love to sell you.
meth labs was just an example and you know it.
There are SOME LEOs who will kick open doors leading to meth labs
I know, but are you going to argue that any of them are in their right minds? If so, I have a bridge I no longer need that I would love to sell you.
Yes I will argue that some of them are in their right minds. They are just trained how to do a job correctly. I sure don't recommend that Deputy Dog raid a meth lab.
Sad but probably true.The question which is being ignored in this thread is do we as a society founded on the bedrocks of personal liberty and freedom from government oppression wish to allow our police to subject a citizen to warrantless home invasion because some police officer suspects that he/she might be smoking marijuana in the privacy and supposed sancitity of his/her home? .
People like you are slowly disappearing and becoming irrelevant. The new society will be told by the powers that be what is important :
"Every politically controlled educational system will inculcate the doctrine of state supremacy sooner or later. . . . Once that doctrine has been accepted, it becomes an almost superhuman task to break the stranglehold of the political power over the life of the citizen. It has had his body, property and mind in its clutches from infancy. An octopus would sooner release its prey. A tax-supported, compulsory educational system is the complete model of the totalitarian state.
Isabel Paterson, The God of the Machine (1943)
.
Actually there is:There is nothing in our Constitution that provides the federal government the power to make marijuana illegal. Only states have that right, and states are rather forced to push criminalize it due to funding and the illusion the federal government has the right to deem it illegal in the first place. What we are seeing now is the finishing touches of a police state. TSA is one sign of this indoctrination.
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.
Gonzales v. Raich | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
Actually there is:There is nothing in our Constitution that provides the federal government the power to make marijuana illegal. Only states have that right, and states are rather forced to push criminalize it due to funding and the illusion the federal government has the right to deem it illegal in the first place. What we are seeing now is the finishing touches of a police state. TSA is one sign of this indoctrination.
In a 6-3 opinion delivered by Justice John Paul Stevens, the Court held that the commerce clause gave Congress authority to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana, despite state law to the contrary. Stevens argued that the Court's precedent "firmly established" Congress' commerce clause power to regulate purely local activities that are part of a "class of activities" with a substantial effect on interstate commerce. The majority argued that Congress could ban local marijuana use because it was part of such a "class of activities": the national marijuana market. Local use affected supply and demand in the national marijuana market, making the regulation of intrastate use "essential" to regulating the drug's national market. The majority distinguished the case from Lopez and Morrison. In those cases, statutes regulated non-economic activity and fell entirely outside Congress' commerce power; in this case, the Court was asked to strike down a particular application of a valid statutory scheme.
Gonzales v. Raich | The Oyez Project at IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law
The plantation is four times larger than the second biggest marijuana fields ever found by authorities, discovered at a ranch in northern Chihuahua state in 1984. The pot plants sheltered under black screen-cloth in a huge square on the floor of the Baja California desert, more than 150 miles (250 kms) south of the U.S. border. Video of the plantation showed a sophisticated system of piped-in irrigation to support the plants, some of which were several feet tall. The plantation also included some wooden outbuildings, presumably for use by people caring for the plants.
The Defense Department said soldiers made the latest discovery during a patrol Tuesday but didn't specify exactly where the fields were found. The department said it would take journalists to view the find. Troops usually destroy such fields by cutting down the plants and burning them. While it's unknown how much of Mexican drug cartels' income comes from marijuana, recent discoveries suggest it remains a large-scale trade.
In November, U.S. and Mexican investigators found two long, sophisticated tunnels under the border between Baja California and California, along with more than 40 tons of marijuana in and around the tunnels. The tunnels ran around 2,000 feet from Mexico to San Diego and were equipped with lighting, ventilation and a rail system for drugs to be carried on a small cart. U.S. officials say they believe the tunnels were the work of the Sinaloa cartel, headed by Mexico's most-wanted drug lord, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman. It was unclear which cartel, if any, operated the plantation found Tuesday.
Source
