PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court



Barry Morris
03-04-2015, 10:13 AM
A scary development.

Scenario:
Police: We want to search your home.
Owner: No.
Police: You are under arrest. Now we will search your home, without a warrant.

Interesting times we live in.

http://thefreethoughtproject.com/supreme-court-rules-cops-warrant-search-home/#cdOPLscpT62qQtT7.01

Bluesky
03-04-2015, 11:25 AM
Amurikan news.

Guess Who?
03-04-2015, 11:28 AM
In a thread in the Soapbox, I mentioned we live in a police state, yet Anapeg questioned this, with everyone else tacitly agreeing with him. I guess I was right.

Anapeg states, "If you elaborate I will try to answer but your statements are disconnected as they stand.
I will try"
- "They don't kill people for any less of a reason than the USA."- Two wrongs do not make a right.
- "We already live in a police state, should it get any worse?" - We live in a police state? Really? Are you over stating for effect?"

RWGR
03-04-2015, 04:55 PM
Amurikan news.

Yes, now correct me if I am wrong, but to show "balance" Barry must now post a thread that shows Canada in a poor light, right?

Or does the "Balance Rule" apply only to me?

RWGR
03-04-2015, 04:57 PM
A scary development.

Scenario:
Police: We want to search your home.
Owner: No.
Police: You are under arrest. Now we will search your home, without a warrant.



that is not what the ruling says.

this is what it says:

"As long as two occupants disagree about allowing officers to enter, and the resident who refuses access is then arrested, police may enter the residence."

And why would they arrest someone? Because they were able to get a visual of someone who was suffering immediate abuse (bruises, blood, etc)

Barry, it refers to someone calling the cops to report domestic violence. Of course the person who is doing the abuse would not want the cops in the house. And, the person being abused would most certainly want the cops to enter the house. This ruling attempts to help probable victims of abuse as it occurs.

You're against this?


And I wonder, does "The Free Thought Project" have a bias in how they present this story?

Reading their take on it, I would think they do in fact have a bias: "In other words, you have no property rights slave"

Ahhh, yes, the word used by many respectable publications when discussing current social and rights-related issues: "slave"

methinks Barry isn't a fan of the calm around here as he has claimed, and is looking to stir the pot a bit, much as last week when he posted a congratulations in Sports for a 2011 Canadian victory over the US in some type of police competition.

Will the real Barry please stand up?!

:) :) :)

Anapeg
03-04-2015, 05:53 PM
In a thread in the Soapbox, I mentioned we live in a police state, yet Anapeg questioned this, with everyone else tacitly agreeing with him. I guess I was right.

Anapeg states, "If you elaborate I will try to answer but your statements are disconnected as they stand.
I will try"
- "They don't kill people for any less of a reason than the USA."- Two wrongs do not make a right.
- "We already live in a police state, should it get any worse?" - We live in a police state? Really? Are you over stating for effect?"

When I last checked we are Canadian and we are under Canadian law, for now. If ones takes time to read the piece and think it through it is not a completely misplaced finding.

Barry Morris
03-04-2015, 09:22 PM
Yes, now correct me if I am wrong, but to show "balance" Barry must now post a thread that shows Canada in a poor light, right?

Or does the "Balance Rule" apply only to me?

Oh, I think it only fair that it applies to both of us.

I'll let you know when I catch up to you, so you can start again, good with that??

Barry Morris
03-04-2015, 09:24 PM
that is not what the ruling says.




What happens when there is only one person in the house??


It's OK to disrespect the messenger, as I did too in this case, but I don't recall you EVER disproving the facts they present, biased or not, in any thread.

RWGR
03-05-2015, 10:40 AM
okay ...what??

RWGR
03-05-2015, 10:40 AM
Oh, I think it only fair that it applies to both of us.

I'll let you know when I catch up to you, so you can start again, good with that??

thanks for admitting, indirectly, there are two sets of rules

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 10:48 AM
okay ...what??

I won another bet!!! :) :) :)

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 10:51 AM
thanks for admitting, indirectly, there are two sets of rules

Indirectly, yeah, like 180 degrees out!!!

No, the rules are always the same. But I'm sure that, even in your profession, the arrogant young snot in the back row does not get cut as much slack as others who are more polite.

That's just the way life is.

RWGR
03-05-2015, 10:53 AM
I won another bet!!! :) :) :)

No fair!

Betting that people will find your comments very confusing is like betting the sun will rise in the morning!

RWGR
03-05-2015, 10:54 AM
Indirectly, yeah, like 180 degrees out!!!

No, the rules are always the same. But I'm sure that, even in your profession, the arrogant young snot in the back row does not get cut as much slack as others who are more polite.

That's just the way life is.

The difference is I don't play favorites among the arrogant young snots.

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 10:58 AM
The difference is I don't play favorites among the arrogant young snots.

Sure. I went to school years ago.

I doubt that human nature has changed all that much.

Chachinga
03-05-2015, 11:42 AM
I won another bet!!! :) :) :)

Have you talked to your pastor yet about this obsession with RW?
It's getting a tad freaky. :eek:

Guess Who?
03-05-2015, 01:03 PM
Have you talked to your pastor yet about this obsession with RW?
It's getting a tad freaky. :eek:

Say it ain't so, Joe

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 01:20 PM
Have you talked to your pastor yet about this obsession with RW?
It's getting a tad freaky. :eek:

Now I'm laughing at you and Bill, too!!

After 15 years debating, we can have a little fun!!!

Bluesky
03-05-2015, 01:47 PM
If this is fun, you need to see someone a bit more qualified than your pastor, if you know what I mean.

Barry Morris
03-05-2015, 05:56 PM
If this is fun, you need to see someone a bit more qualified than your pastor, if you know what I mean.

Some people just don't know "the rest of the story", which accounts for a lot of the fun!!!

KDawg
03-05-2015, 07:30 PM
Some people just don't know "the rest of the story", which accounts for a lot of the fun!!!
That line is pretty old and tiresome.

BFLPE
03-10-2015, 05:34 PM
Barry, it refers to someone calling the cops to report domestic violence. Of course the person who is doing the abuse would not want the cops in the house. And, the person being abused would most certainly want the cops to enter the house. This ruling attempts to help probable victims of abuse as it occurs.Me thinks you're wrong.

If someone calls for domestic abuse they can arrest the abuser without having to search the home. I believe most places actually require an arrest be made.

If the one who called about the abuse wants to produce evidence they would. If not they could then deny the right to search. Really not seeing how this ruling would have much effect on domestic violence situations.

If you're curious about the the case in question you can read the following. Though domestic violence is part of the story it's not the reason for the search.


Police officers observed a suspect in a violent robbery run into an apartment building, and heard screams coming from one of the apartments. They knocked on the apartment door, which was answered by Roxanne Rojas, who appeared to be battered and bleeding. When the officers asked her to step out of the apartment so that they could conduct a protective sweep, petitioner came to the door and objected. Suspecting that he had assaulted Rojas, the officers removed petitioner from the apartment and placed him under arrest. He was then identified as the perpetrator in the earlier robbery and taken to the police station. An officer later returned to the apartment and, after obtaining Rojasí oral and written consent, searched the premises, where he found several items linking petitioner to the robbery. The trial court denied petitionerís motion to suppress that evidence, and he was convicted.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/12-7822