Posted on 03/16/2014 7:23:27 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
Fort Worth police ‘allowed’ warrantless ‘interviews’ a few months ago, we asked Abbott what he thought, and the FW Police Chief responded that they won’t do that again.
MD, get your Attorney General involved, assuming he/she isn’t already full-on Commie.
They did warrantless house searches in Boston with no problem, why does anyone think they are exempt in their cars anywhere...
behold, the illusion of freedom.
“There is nothing more painful to me at this stage in my life than to walk down the street and hear footsteps and start thinking about robbery. Then look around and see somebody White and feel relieved.”
— Jesse Jackson
“A warrant based on probable cause.”
And “particularly describing the place to be searched,” when that involved “miles of cars”, probably hundreds?
How long would it take to get such a warrant? Should the vehicles and people be detained for however long it takes? Would the fleeing criminals have more time to find a way to sneak away?
Sam Browne invented the belt to allow him to draw his saber after he lost one arm, long before Hitler was born.
True. sorry about dropping the e. Probably invalidates what I wrote.
“True. sorry about dropping the e. Probably invalidates what I wrote.”
I didn’t even notice the e. I just like the Sam Browne. I think our military should bring it back—but only for men. After all, nurses look silly in a sword belt.
“An articulable fact that led to specific suspicions and possible arrest.”
Like what? That the robbers escaped in a car onto I270?
“...designed to make criminals out of every citizen that operates a vehicle...”
Nuts.
Testing... Testing... Test the sheep...
Preaching to the wrong choir there are a number of Boston FReepers who love warrantless searchers and having police in full tach gear with big armored vehicles going door to door it made them feel so ‘safe’ after the Boston bombing.
Wouldn't surprise me at all...Or if there was, a false flag...
Conditioning the people and get it on tv so we can all see how to respond...
Are you seriously defending treating everyone on a roadway as a criminal based on the exceedingly thin possibility that there might maybesorta be bad guys there somewhere?
How does that differ from the behavior of treating every gun owner as a criminal?
Please explain.
Pogroms start in small ways
I highly doubt that the police who are searching your vehicle have your constitution rights in mind while conducting said search, and could probably care less. Your rights only extend as far as who is pointing the gun at whom, and police rely on fear, intimidation, and ignorance of the law of citizens to achieve compliance. In short, you have just as much to fear from the police state as you do the criminal elements in society, but at least you have the ability to dispatch criminals without too much backlash.
“Are you seriously defending treating everyone on a roadway as a criminal based on the exceedingly thin possibility that there might maybesorta be bad guys there somewhere?”
No. lightman commented in post 6 that “Everyone should carry a copy of the Constitution AND commit to memory the Bill of Rights.”
I responded by quoting the Fourth Amendment in the BOR emphasizing the word “unreasonable”. After that I mostly asked questions concerning reasonableness.
As far as “treating everyone on a roadway as a criminal”, that’s a different aspect of the matter that I have not addressed. “Everyone on the road” should not be treated as a criminal even if the search is conducted with a proper warrant. Of course, you might say that the act of searching is treating like a criminal, but that doesn’t necessarily have to be true.
“How does that differ from the behavior of treating every gun owner as a criminal?”
I don’t know that it does.
Now, are all of you seriously stating that the police should not have made the effort to search for the criminals they believed to be in the area, that they should have casually let them go to rob again? You do understand that we are discussing bank robbers, people who took the property of others, people who show contempt for the rights of others, people who undermine our society? (Yeah, I know...the last two points apply to too many LEOs.) Aren’t we supposed to help with the apprehension of such people when we can? Isn’t it in our interest to do so?
And something else: these were bank robbers, but what if they weren’t? What if they were kidnappers who had abducted your child or spouse? Would you still object to the search as conducted? If not, why not? What’s the principle involved?
“Please explain.”
I want people to think more and (optimistically) better.
Nobody is saying that the leos shouldn’t have responded.
What we are saying is that the response chosen was improper, unwieldy, unlikely to find the sought for bad guys who may not have even existed, and unduly disruptive.
How about: description of suspects and suspect vehicle?
(Too politically incorrect probably. )
It sounds, actually, like somebody linked out Maryland and SWATted an entire roadway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.