Posted on 11/17/2015 10:03:43 PM PST by Altariel
I’ll point out the following from the article I posted and see if anybody can figure out why it’s significant:
At this point, Kehagais reported he saw a vehicle behind the residence matching the description of one owned by a suspect in the assault investigation, the affidavit said.
Kehagais then asked Livingston for identification, the affidavit says.
I’d like to point out that it’s never a good idea to fight the cops. If you’re in the right you could end up dead. If you’re wrong you could end up dead. It’s best to fight the battle in court.
In this case, if they find anything without a warrant they can’t use it anyway. But I suspect that in this case it would have been determined that they had probable cause once they saw the car in the back of the home.
If the are writing this, yes.
And that's the most important part of the story.
I just saw this article, after responding to you.
http://gawker.com/whose-side-are-the-oath-keepers-in-ferguson-on-1723917237
It’s interesting.
How about the police don’t violate the fourth amendment and there won’t be any problems.
The only colonists who argued “let the British abuse your rights” were the loyalists. They, and their ideological descendants, weren’t and aren’t on the side of liberty.
Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.
http://www.constitution.org/bor/otis_against_writs.htm
Attempting to violate a citizen’s right to security in his home: a problem older than the revolutionary war.
Much as their ideological ancestors did when they insisted English violations of liberty weren’t that bad.....
Alternatively, it gives the lie to the claim that a taser is nonlethal.
If a police officer illegally attacks a citizen, in a free nation, the citizen may legitimately defend himself.
But I suspect that in this case it would have been determined that they had probable cause once they saw the car in the back of the home.
See, here’s how it goes.
So, you saw a car possibly involved with an assault behind the home? Officer:Yes.
And what type of car would that be? Officer: What type of car was behind the home?
Blue Chevrolet.
Officer: Yep! That was it. Blue Chevrolet!
They could have left the residence. They chose not to. They threatened him. They attacked him.
The officer tased the citizen. The citizen defended himself from an illegal assault.
How about the police don’t violate the fourth amendment and there won’t be any problems.
...
By all means, if this case makes it to the judicial system let me know if it’s determined that the officer violated the 4th amendment.
I wasn’t taking the side of police. Just trying to understand the circumstances.
Trouble is when you try to defend yourself from the police you are bound to lose. I think prudence/safety dictates cooperation with the police, for the reason just stated, even when you’re sure they’re wrong. My house was searched without a warrant (I was not guilty of anything) and I decided not to attempt to prevent it. Lived to tell about it.
That would be the point-—we have lost our freedoms to the point that most people would find the notion of lawful self defense against an illegal assault by a police officer all but unthinkable.
So, if the government rules its employees didn’t violate the constitution, they didn’t violate it?
King George used to make the same argument.
I agree with your post #36.
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.