just more 'reasonable restrictions' on the 4th.... the 1st is next
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Watch the police remove a Watertown family from their home, and then search it.
- Thread starter dcmdon
- Start date
- Status
I normally don't have an issue with cops, I follow the law and have respect their professional duty and obligations. This past Friday I was DISGUSTED with the police state that I saw. I saw many many men and women, sworn to uphold the laws of the land, piss all over their oath and our country. I don't know what is scarier, these acts that violated the 4th amendment or the 90% of the people who willingly allowed it to happen. I am not saying that you could stop something like this, but I sure would have voiced my concerns and let it be known that I did not consent to a warrant-less search. Me and my beliefs against 15 swat, I will honor my beliefs and walk out peacefully to live another day, allowing me to SUE THE HELL out of them.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
That dog should buy a lottery ticket.
![[puke2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/031.gif "Puke2 [puke2]")
I'm sure some collaborators will be along shortly!
cbrxx
NES Member
Lot of guys in one house. Was that a frat house? Or a A bombing search "party"??
Maybe some a$$hole neighbor called in a "see something, say something" on the neighbors he doesn't like.
Would love to hear the official report, and the truth.
Maybe some a$$hole neighbor called in a "see something, say something" on the neighbors he doesn't like.
Would love to hear the official report, and the truth.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
The Godfrey case pre-dated Heller/McDonald, as was based on the premise that since there is no right to own a firearm, denial of that right does not constitute punishment and is therefore not subject to the standards of due process required when imposing punishment (Moyer v. Sherborne).
A similar case that denies or revokes an LTC for exercise of a constitutional right would be a setup for a federal case as it puts the subject in the position of having to choose between two constitutional rights on a "you get only one right, but not both" basis. I heard a rumor there is a group in MA that is very interested in pursuing this sort of case
Where the hell is the ACLU?
Heck, it could be an "Atilla Lovin' Party", but what does it matter who is there?
They call that "Swatting". Only this time, it is with about 942 different SWAT teams.
Last edited:
That's what a warrant is for.
Pretty sure that a judge would have granted one in 5 minutes under the hypothetical circumstances you describe above.
Let's not make up scenarios in which this is a legit search - if they had a warrant, you'd see them showing it to the homeowner on the video. What we see is the SWAT threatening him instead - of course there was no warrant.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,272
- Likes
- 185
The Godfrey case pre-dated Heller/McDonald, as was based on the premise that since there is no right to own a firearm, denial of that right does not constitute punishment and is therefore not subject to the standards of due process required when imposing punishment (Moyer v. Sherborne).
A similar case that denies or revokes an LTC for exercise of a constitutional right would be a setup for a federal case as it puts the subject in the position of having to choose between two constitutional rights on a "you get only one right, but not both" basis. I heard a rumor there is a group in MA that is very interested in pursuing this sort of case
I can't find a link to that case, but I am sure it is similar as you mention.
I would hate to be the guy who has to wait years and years for this case to make it to the FEDERAL supreme court, since our state version seems to still cling to the notion that there is no individual RKBA.
![[hmmm]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/009.gif "Hmm [hmmm]")
![[puke]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/023.gif "Puke [puke]")
Videos like this piss me off. I wonder if they had any incidents of the SS busting into somebody who was armed's house? If I lived in one of the towns that were on lockdown I would have had my AR ready just incase
Yeah, we don't want my made up scenario where it could be legit interfere with your made up scenario where it wasn't.
What I see in that video disgusts me, but you do need to allow for the fact that you have no idea what happened in the moments before the video started running.
![[laugh2]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/014.gif "Laugh at above [laugh2]")
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 251
- Likes
- 9
Have you ever heard the stories of what the police did to the people of New Orleans when hurricane Katrina happened? They raped woman and beat a lot of people for no reason when they did their "home searches".
I know what the police are going to say here. They are going to site exigent circumstances for their actions. Someone may have been in danger, someone may have been trying to destroy evidence, or in this case a armed and dangerous felon may have been trying to escape. What I have been trying to find is a law that narrows the scope of the search that allows the police to search a town! I thought exigent circumstances could only be used when you had creditable information that a person was in a certain house! But I am not a lawyer, and I certainly did not stay in a holiday inn last night!!!
It should bother everyone in here. It should actually make you angry.
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2005
- Messages
- 47,529
- Likes
- 33,560
It's been verified that people called police to have their homes searched. If they had exigent circumstances they would not have knocked. I hate what I see, it bothers me more hat people consented. It's the perfect storm of anti constitutional asshattery, a vaguely colorable emergency situation and so many agencies that you'd be hard pressed to know which agency searched you and under what authority. I'd be willing to bet money those homeowners called the police themselves.
IANAL but wouldn't anything they find be inadmissible unless it had to do specifically with the reason for the search?
wizdoc2006
NES Member
A little taste of Marshal Law and the Patriot act.
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2012
- Messages
- 2,775
- Likes
- 1,269
Definitely. If it doesn't, there is something wrong with you.
not new guy
NES Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2009
- Messages
- 36,090
- Likes
- 54,331
Doubt it. You could hear it all playing out on the scanner. The cops were guessing.
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2008
- Messages
- 1,272
- Likes
- 185
I've read that case. It's the Sherborn one that I couldnt find a link to.
As far as the Godfrey case, my favorite line is this:
Notwithstanding the serious danger that existed, especially to children, Godfrey invoked his constitutional rights and refused to cooperate with the police. The chief stated that while he respected Godfrey's constitutional entitlements, he also had to recognize the "serious danger which continues to exist." It is on that basis that the chief determined that Godfrey was "no longer a suitable person to be licensed to carry a firearm."
----
The facts. A license to carry firearms issued under G.L. c. 140, section 131, as appearing in St.1986, c. 481, section 2, is subject to revocation "for cause at the will of the authority issuing the same." We recite those facts which prompted the chief's decision as they appear in his notice of revocation to Godfrey. The police were investigating recent incidents of gunshots having been fired into a school, a private residence, and an automobile. They had attempted to speak with and to question Godfrey about the shootings because they had information that the gun might have be- longed to him and that it might have been disposed of near an elementary school.
---
- Status
Similar threads
