Supreme Court: Strip searches, even for minor offenses [Archive] - Glock Talk

PDA

View Full Version : Supreme Court: Strip searches, even for minor offenses


TBO
04-02-2012, 11:23
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/02/10982324-supreme-court-strip-searches-even-for-minor-offenses

ChuteTheMall
04-02-2012, 11:26
Even for public nudity?

:headscratch:

Angry Fist
04-02-2012, 11:29
:laughabove:

G29Reload
04-02-2012, 11:34
This is only for jailers.

Its not like it can happen by the side of the road for a traffic tickets...

snerd
04-02-2012, 11:47
The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.So, we're all guilty of something bigger when stopped, until we prove we're not? Sounds kind of backwards to me.

whoflungdo
04-02-2012, 12:02
So, we're all guilty of something bigger when stopped, until we prove we're not? Sounds kind of backwards to me.


It's still pretty simple. Don't get arrested or go to jail, and you won't get strip searched.

snerd
04-02-2012, 12:05
It's still pretty simple. Don't get arrested or go to jail, and you won't get strip searched.
Well, how are we supposed to account for MISTAKES made by the government?
Albert Florence was arrested by a state trooper because of an error in the state's records that mistakenly said he was wanted on an outstanding warrant for an unpaid fine. Even if the warrant had been valid, failure to pay a fine is not a crime in New Jersey.Florence was held for a week in two different jails before the charges were dropped. But at each jail, he was required to shower with delousing soap and undergo a strip search.

lancesorbenson
04-02-2012, 12:09
It's still pretty simple. Don't get arrested or go to jail, and you won't get strip searched.

Except the guy in this story didn't do anything to get arrested.

NDCent
04-02-2012, 12:18
Well, they might as well make it an x-ray. We've seen from earlier posted articles that a 5 inch K-frame S&W can be held up the old poop shoot during a squat and cough. :aodnsb:

whoflungdo
04-02-2012, 12:22
Well, how are we supposed to account for MISTAKES made by the government?


You are correct mistakes will happen. Innocent people will still get arrested, jailed, and even convicted. That shouldn't stop the jail facilities from what the court has deemed to be reasonable searches in such situations.

Would you also argue that pockets shouldn't be emptied or the requirement to remove shoe laces and belts at the holding facilities be halted after an arrest as well?

TBO
04-02-2012, 12:34
Well, how are we supposed to account for MISTAKES made by the government?
Don't pay a fine and eventually it'll become a Contempt of Court warrant.

Basic 101.

maxsnafu
04-02-2012, 12:38
This is only for jailers.

Its not like it can happen by the side of the road for a traffic tickets...

...yet.

Bren
04-02-2012, 12:43
I think the point Breyer may not understand is that a guy who goes to jail and gets in a weapon or drugs, isn't in a cell alone once he goes to general population. I shoplifter with a hidden knife now means a jail population with murderers and rapists and bank robbers has a hidden knife (or whatever). Jails are even less secure and less segregated by offense and dangerousness than prisons.

The current charge against the prisoner is irrelevant to what he can smuggle in, or how dangerous he is. I've arrested murderers for DUI and public intoxication (even an "axe murderer" once and an accomplice to killing a police officer another time).

Bren
04-02-2012, 12:46
Well, how are we supposed to account for MISTAKES made by the government?

We have a legal system that lets him sue somebody and get some money for the horror of having to take off his clothes. Heck, when the Army made me strip to jocket shorts and do all sorts of crazy exercises in a room with 20 other guys and a female doctor watching, then had her give me a prostate exam, I didn't get to sue anybody...or really care, for that matter.

Some people are way too delicate.:rofl:

whoflungdo
04-02-2012, 12:47
This is only for jailers.

Its not like it can happen by the side of the road for a traffic tickets...

...yet.


Expect traffic stops and profiling to change dramatically when it does..:whistling:

The Machinist
04-02-2012, 13:17
Hand-typed. Fair Use. :whistling:

The court also noted that Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber, was initially arrested for not having a license plate on his car and that one of the 9/11 terrorists was stopped and ticketed for speeding just two days before hijacking Flight 93. "People detained for minor offenses can turn out to be the most devious and dangerous criminals," the court said.
This is precisely why so many things are illegal in this country. They don't want anyone to escape the net. If your masters decide they want to strip you naked, they'll already have a reason to detain you, no matter how hard you try to play by the rules.

wjv
04-02-2012, 13:58
http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/02/10982324-supreme-court-strip-searches-even-for-minor-offenses

This is a totally disgusting ruling. . . Just yesterday I was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction and the lady cop strip searched me. .

But I got a photo of her with my cell phone and I'm going to report her to the departments internal affairs division. .

If you see this lady, don't let her get her hands on you. .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/bcvojak/RVNet02/HC1.jpg

G19G20
04-02-2012, 14:02
Don't pay a fine and eventually it'll become a Contempt of Court warrant.

Basic 101.


Not true. In both states Ive lived in (VA and NC), failure to pay a fine leads to DL suspension but nothing further from the courts and certainly not an arrest warrant.

whoflungdo
04-02-2012, 14:02
This is a totally disgusting ruling. . . Just yesterday I was pulled over for a minor traffic infraction and the lady cop strip searched me. .

But I got a photo of her with my cell phone and I'm going to report her to the departments internal affairs division. .

If you see this lady, don't let her get her hands on you. .

.
.
.
.
http://i75.photobucket.com/albums/i303/bcvojak/RVNet02/HC1.jpg

Was she wearing her hat?

smokin762
04-02-2012, 14:13
I thought if you were a prisoner, that you didn’t have any Rights.:dunno:

How can the Strip Search be a violation of his Rights, if he doesn’t have Rights at the time of him being in jail?

smokin762
04-02-2012, 14:14
Was she wearing her hat?

Ya, lets go with hat. I was thinking of something else. :whistling::supergrin:

The Machinist
04-02-2012, 15:02
I thought if you were a prisoner, that you didnít have any Rights.:dunno:

How can the Strip Search be a violation of his Rights, if he doesnít have Rights at the time of him being in jail?
You're not a convicted criminal just because you've been arrested.

wjv
04-02-2012, 16:42
Was she wearing her hat?

Not afterwards. . . . :whistling:

steveksux
04-02-2012, 18:45
20 other guys and a female doctor watching, then had her give me a prostate exam, I didn't get to sue anybody...or really care, for that matter.

Some people are way too delicate.:rofl:
Some people prefer women proctologists, probably thinking they have smaller fingers. What they fail to take into account is a woman's wedding ring has a lot more sharp edges and protrusions than a man's wedding band.

Randy

certifiedfunds
04-02-2012, 20:20
It's still pretty simple. Don't get arrested or go to jail, and you won't get strip searched.

Innocent people never, never, never, never, ever get arrested.

TBO
04-02-2012, 20:51
They do, but they don't come crying on the Internet about it.

The Machinist
04-02-2012, 20:54
They do, but they don't come crying on the Internet about it.
No ****. They're in jail.

TBO
04-02-2012, 21:05
If they have a valid case, they take to the courts.

If they don't, they go whine online.

ymmv

QNman
04-02-2012, 21:23
This is only for jailers.

Its not like it can happen by the side of the road for a traffic tickets...

DAMMIT!!

:rofl:

QNman
04-02-2012, 21:35
Cops are great. They should be revered and worshipped. And trusted in all circumstances above us mere mortals. Wearing the shield means they are smarter, cleaner, more honest, and better in every conceivable way, down to the last man (or woman). Any tool we can place at their discretion and disposal to ensnare any potential criminal, as determined by a sworn officer, should be offered with humility and gratitude. To heck with that old BOR - should just said "leave it up to the cops".

Its really very simple - If you don't want to be jailed or otherwise on the receiving end of their wrath, just make sure you never break a law or piss one of them off. Ever.

Now stop questioning authority, dammit!

TBO
04-02-2012, 21:38
Childish prattle doesn't make a sound argument, it just makes sound.

mj9mm
04-02-2012, 21:46
:upeyes::upeyes: are we really so concerned about this topic or just turned on by it:tongueout:.

ateamer
04-02-2012, 21:49
I thought if you were a prisoner, that you didn’t have any Rights.:dunno:

How can the Strip Search be a violation of his Rights, if he doesn’t have Rights at the time of him being in jail?

Prisoners do have rights. There is no Constitutional protection against all searches. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is reasonable to strip-search unsentenced prisoners in jails. I haven't read the ruling, but it most likely states that the government has a compelling interest in controlling the entry of contraband and weapons into jails, and that the interest is more compelling than an individual prisoner's right to privacy.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could seriously argue that it is acceptable to risk weapons and drugs entering jails. X-rays won't necessarily reveal bindles of dope.

holesinpaper
04-03-2012, 03:05
That's fine. But if the person who is stripped searched is found to be innocent, then the guards should be charged with sexual assault. If the person is convicted, the guards get a pass.

cowboywannabe
04-03-2012, 04:17
That's fine. But if the person who is stripped searched is found to be innocent, then the guards should be charged with sexual assault. If the person is convicted, the guards get a pass.

you need to brush up on basic law.

Big Mad Dawg
04-03-2012, 05:17
I have never been arrested as the legal system and the idea of jail/prison is a very big deterrent to me but I fear a mistake happening in the system. You say how could that happen years ago I was pulled over and my girl friend and me in my car surrounded by police guns drawn and we were cuffed face down on the road. After a few minutes we where un cuffed and they apologized for the mistake seems they thought a black Firebird with a couple looked like a black Monte Carlo with two (male) bank robbery "suspects". I have never had a situation like this before or after but I still remember the embarrassment and feeling of distrust and even some level of dislike that followed their incompetence.
What does this have to do with the topic? Cops and the system make mistakes and even though I understand this and their need to be safe in their jobs the fact is they make mistakes. I say keep me in a isolated cell till you know if I am truly a criminal or just one more of your mistakes and till that time keep eyes and hands off my unit.

certifiedfunds
04-03-2012, 05:46
Cops are great. They should be revered and worshipped. And trusted in all circumstances above us mere mortals. Wearing the shield means they are smarter, cleaner, more honest, and better in every conceivable way, down to the last man (or woman). Any tool we can place at their discretion and disposal to ensnare any potential criminal, as determined by a sworn officer, should be offered with humility and gratitude. To heck with that old BOR - should just said "leave it up to the cops".

Its really very simple - If you don't want to be jailed or otherwise on the receiving end of their wrath, just make sure you never break a law or piss one of them off. Ever.

Now stop questioning authority, dammit!

Don't taunt them or else be prepared to suffer The Wrath

QNman
04-03-2012, 05:55
Childish prattle doesn't make a sound argument, it just makes sound.

Perhaps. Or perhaps sarcastic parody rings only with those who have seen the pattern of officers suggesting such things as the first amendment apply differently to their chosen profession.

05DodgeDakota
04-03-2012, 06:17
I work in a jail booking facility. I strongly believe every person entering the facility should be strip searched. Currently we can only do it if your are charged with a felony, a weapon or drug charge, or if I can articulate in a report that I think your hiding something. That being said, once your in jail, every inmate can be strip searched during a shakedown.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

NDCent
04-03-2012, 06:40
I hate when my spastic colon acts up. Irritable bowel syndrome is a bummer. :embarassed:

Bren
04-03-2012, 06:50
Some people prefer women proctologists, probably thinking they have smaller fingers. What they fail to take into account is a woman's wedding ring has a lot more sharp edges and protrusions than a man's wedding band.

Randy

I mainly preferred her because she wasn't a man. That's just creepy.

Bren
04-03-2012, 06:53
I have never been arrested as the legal system and the idea of jail/prison is a very big deterrent to me but I fear a mistake happening in the system. You say how could that happen years ago I was pulled over and my girl friend and me in my car surrounded by police guns drawn and we were cuffed face down on the road. After a few minutes we where un cuffed and they apologized for the mistake seems they thought a black Firebird with a couple looked like a black Monte Carlo with two (male) bank robbery "suspects". I have never had a situation like this before or after but I still remember the embarrassment and feeling of distrust and even some level of dislike that followed their incompetence.
What does this have to do with the topic? Cops and the system make mistakes and even though I understand this and their need to be safe in their jobs the fact is they make mistakes. I say keep me in a isolated cell till you know if I am truly a criminal or just one more of your mistakes and till that time keep eyes and hands off my unit.

Sure, mistakes can happen and you might be arrested when you are innocent.

I think the part the many people have a problem with is why being strip searched is your biggest concern. To me, it's like people saying, "OMG, what if I'm put in jail and I have to eat broccoli!!!"

smokin762
04-03-2012, 16:06
Prisoners do have rights. There is no Constitutional protection against all searches. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is reasonable to strip-search unsentenced prisoners in jails. I haven't read the ruling, but it most likely states that the government has a compelling interest in controlling the entry of contraband and weapons into jails, and that the interest is more compelling than an individual prisoner's right to privacy.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could seriously argue that it is acceptable to risk weapons and drugs entering jails. X-rays won't necessarily reveal bindles of dope.


Thank you for the explanation. :wavey:

cowboywannabe
04-03-2012, 16:13
Prisoners do have rights. There is no Constitutional protection against all searches. The Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches. The Supreme Court has ruled that it is reasonable to strip-search unsentenced prisoners in jails. I haven't read the ruling, but it most likely states that the government has a compelling interest in controlling the entry of contraband and weapons into jails, and that the interest is more compelling than an individual prisoner's right to privacy.

I have a hard time understanding how anyone could seriously argue that it is acceptable to risk weapons and drugs entering jails. X-rays won't necessarily reveal bindles of dope.

yes, thank you. these tid bits of common sence escape most people everyday.

G19G20
04-04-2012, 18:18
yes, thank you. these tid bits of common sence escape most people everyday.

I don't believe in sacrificing the rights of the individual for the "Greater Good". That's collectivism and socialistic. It's a bigger picture issue than just searching someone for contraband. I wonder if the ruling also applies to privately run CCA jails and prisons?

Here's an idea. End the drug war and stop infringing on the 2nd Amendment. That eliminates the need to strip search most of the people admitted into county jails and prisons.

05DodgeDakota
04-04-2012, 18:26
It's also worth noting, that a cavity search is totally different from a strip search. A strip search is you removing all your clothing and the opening your mouth and stick out your tounge, run your fingers through your hair and then doing the squat and cough. This can be preformed by any officer of the same sex, and normally does not require them to touch you at all, rather just search your clothing after you have removed it. A cavity search must be preformed by medical staff and X-rays may also be involved.


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

wprebeck
04-04-2012, 18:52
I hate when my spastic colon acts up. Irritable bowel syndrome is a bummer. :embarassed:

And?

You think that bothers us? I've searched homeless people who literally had **** their pants so much, it was running out the bottom of the pants leg into their shoes. Drunks piss themselves all the time, too. The best I've heard of at my jail, was the homeless guy who took off his sock, and his frostbitten toe came with it.

You're trying to gross out a group of people who see the worst crap imaginable. No easy task, and a pair of poopy jeans just won't do it. I've personally watched people eat turds, and worse. Try again.

wprebeck
04-04-2012, 18:55
I don't believe in sacrificing the rights of the individual for the "Greater Good". That's collectivism and socialistic. It's a bigger picture issue than just searching someone for contraband. I wonder if the ruling also applies to privately run CCA jails and prisons?

Here's an idea. End the drug war and stop infringing on the 2nd Amendment. That eliminates the need to strip search most of the people admitted into county jails and prisons.

No, it doesn't...

We routinely have people shove cigarette lighters, matches, cash, and other assorted prohibited items in their ass to sneak it in. Plus, even were drugs legal on the street, they wouldn't be allowed in secure facilities. But, go ahead and tell me some more of your incorrect beliefs. I'll base my arguments on 12 years of experience at a large county jail. You can base yours off of...well, opinion only.

QNman
04-04-2012, 19:17
And?

You think that bothers us? I've searched homeless people who literally had **** their pants so much, it was running out the bottom of the pants leg into their shoes. Drunks piss themselves all the time, too. The best I've heard of at my jail, was the homeless guy who took off his sock, and his frostbitten toe came with it.

You're trying to gross out a group of people who see the worst crap imaginable. No easy task, and a pair of poopy jeans just won't do it. I've personally watched people eat turds, and worse. Try again.

It was a joke, Sarge. Lighten up.

QNman
04-04-2012, 19:19
No, it doesn't...

We routinely have people shove cigarette lighters, matches, cash, and other assorted prohibited items in their ass to sneak it in. Plus, even were drugs legal on the street, they wouldn't be allowed in secure facilities. But, go ahead and tell me some more of your incorrect beliefs. I'll base my arguments on 12 years of experience at a large county jail. You can base yours off of...well, opinion only.

Ooh. Gung-ho AND a tough guy to boot! Glad you're on our side.

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/t/the_shawshank_redemption-10637.jpg

wprebeck
04-04-2012, 19:38
Ooh. Gung-ho AND a tough guy to boot! Glad you're on our side.

http://images.pictureshunt.com/pics/t/the_shawshank_redemption-10637.jpg

What part of my post was "tough guy"? I've got 12 years on this job. The poster I quoted obviously has none. Wanna try a better argument?

wprebeck
04-04-2012, 19:40
Oh, and I'm not on "our" side. I'm on the side of the folks that realize the depth of human stupidity knows no boundaries, and that people are generally venal, self serving, stupid folks who barely breathe unassisted. Also known as the "us vs them" syndrome. Thanks, though.

Sam Spade
04-04-2012, 19:59
I don't argue economics with Certified Funds, physics with Devildog, cars with Rabbi or jails with wprebeck.

But go ahead, give it a whirl.

QNman
04-04-2012, 20:01
What part of my post was "tough guy"? I've got 12 years on this job. The poster I quoted obviously has none. Wanna try a better argument?

Why would I do that? You make my argument far better than I could. :poke:

QNman
04-04-2012, 20:02
I don't argue economics with Certified Funds, physics with Devildog, cars with Rabbi or jails with wprebeck.

But go ahead, give it a whirl.

... You've seen my avatar, right?

Sam Spade
04-04-2012, 20:08
... You've seen my avatar, right?

Yeah. How's that working as a lifestyle? :cool:

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 20:11
Oh, and I'm not on "our" side. I'm on the side of the folks that realize the depth of human stupidity knows no boundaries, and that people are generally venal, self serving, stupid folks who barely breathe unassisted. Also known as the "us vs them" syndrome. Thanks, though.

Yeah that cleared it up perfectly.

G19G20
04-04-2012, 20:26
No, it doesn't...

We routinely have people shove cigarette lighters, matches, cash, and other assorted prohibited items in their ass to sneak it in. Plus, even were drugs legal on the street, they wouldn't be allowed in secure facilities. But, go ahead and tell me some more of your incorrect beliefs. I'll base my arguments on 12 years of experience at a large county jail. You can base yours off of...well, opinion only.

It appears you missed my point entirely. It's claimed earlier in the thread that drug and weapons arrests are the usual basis for jail strip searches. How many would be arrested, and therefore strip searched, if drugs were legal and the 2nd amendment wasn't infringed upon?

cowboywannabe
04-04-2012, 20:38
It appears you missed my point entirely. It's claimed earlier in the thread that drug and weapons arrests are the usual basis for jail strip searches. How many would be arrested, and therefore strip searched, if drugs were legal and the 2nd amendment wasn't infringed upon?

you seem to be trying to reason like obama.

obama thinks you make a law and then the constitution is made in adherence with that law. instead of the constitution being first then the law being made to adhere to the constitution.


same thing with your drugs and guns thinking regarding searching people who have been lawfully arrested for a crime. you think dont ban guns and drugs and that will do away with searching people arrested for other crimes.

Brucev
04-04-2012, 20:42
Bad decision. But, the makeup of the sc will change. And then this mistake will be rectified. It will not suit Barney Fife. But it will very much suit John Q. Citizen. And John Q. Citizen is the one who matters. His Constitutional rights are more important than whatever makes someone else's job easier, etc. If they don't like it, they can always find another job more to their taste. That is far better than bastardizing the Constitution.

Sam Spade
04-04-2012, 20:44
Bad decision. But, the makeup of the sc will change. And then this mistake will be rectified. It will not suit Barney Fife. But it will very much suit John Q. Citizen. And John Q. Citizen is the one who matters. His Constitutional rights are more important than whatever makes someone else's job easier, etc. If they don't like it, they can always find another job more to their taste. That is far better than bastardizing the Constitution.

As I asked in the other thread: what's your Constitutional cite that holds any inmates are immune from search when they're in the State's custody?

Brucev
04-04-2012, 20:46
That's fine. But if the person who is stripped searched is found to be innocent, then the guards should be charged with sexual assault. If the person is convicted, the guards get a pass.

Not good enough. Let the city/county admin., the dept. admin. "face the music." Let them be arrested ... and given a nice designer orange jump suit and flip flops ... after they get the same identical treatment. And if they are found innocent, then let them "sue." What's good for the goose is good for the gander!

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 20:50
I don't argue economics with Certified Funds, physics with Devildog, cars with Rabbi or jails with wprebeck.

But go ahead, give it a whirl.

So you don't argue topics with those more technically/directly knowledgeable/experienced about the issue than you are assuming they just know better? Or is is it that despite disagreement with them you lack the ability to argue against them convincingly? Or am I to take away that because you don't argue those issues with those individuals, it entitles you not be be argued with over issues of law enforcement?

Of the individuals you mentioned, I would argue against any of them should I disagree with them on something related to their given area of expertise. Interestingly enough arguing cars (as long as we are talking technical specs not aesthetics) with Rabbi would be the least productive as it it the least subjective of the issues.

I know I haven't walked a day in your shoes so I have no ability to put things in perspective. I can't possibly fathom the trials and tribulations of someone else's life or profession unless I have lived it. I am simply incapable of placing myself in anothers' place without direct experience. Just like none of us can properly understand the mindset of the Founders. We didn't live it after all. We don't have 12 years of experience living under late 1700's British rule. So what the heck do we know and who are we to judge right?

Nothing but elitist BS.

Brucev
04-04-2012, 20:54
As I asked in the other thread: what's your Constitutional cite that holds any inmates are immune from search when they're in the State's custody?

Why don't you demonstrate in the founding fathers that unreasonable search and seizure did not exclude invasive body cavity searches? Or is it possible that you foolishly think that the judicial system is "impartial," etc. It is just this sort of disregard for the Constitution by judicial activist that causes a broad disregard for it. Who can respect a Constitution that judges twist to suit themselves? It is no different with liberals or conservatives. A debauched judiciary producing a defective decision only results in people despising what should merit respect.

Sam Spade
04-04-2012, 20:59
Not all opinions are created equal. As much as Ms. Marple's self-esteem classes in public school taught you that everyone was just as good as everyone else, that doesn't translate to everyone's opinion being of as much value.

Certain posters are authoritative in certain areas. If my ability to recognize excellence offends the populist advocates of Lake Woebegone, so be it. Theyre still authoritative, and you're tilting at windmills.

So what Constitutional hook are you hanging your argument on? Or is it simply an offense to your sensibility that you think SCOTUS should side with?

QNman
04-04-2012, 21:03
Yeah. How's that working as a lifestyle? :cool:

Never a dull moment! :supergrin:

Sam Spade
04-04-2012, 21:05
Why don't you demonstrate in the founding fathers that unreasonable search and seizure did not exclude invasive body cavity searches? Or is it possible that you foolishly think that the judicial system is "impartial," etc. It is just this sort of disregard for the Constitution by judicial activist that causes a broad disregard for it. Who can respect a Constitution that judges twist to suit themselves? It is no different with liberals or conservatives. A debauched judiciary producing a defective decision only results in people despising what should merit respect.

Speaking of unequal opinions...here's how it works: You argue against the status quo, you accept the burden of proof. SCOTUS + history = status quo. So post the support for your point of view. Start with an easy one---explain why you think a decision that upholds a historical practice is "judicial activism". Because even with simple concepts like that, you're clearly bass ackwards.

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 21:09
...you think dont ban guns and drugs and that will do away with searching people arrested for other crimes.

I seriously doubt that was his point but whatever lets you feel high and mighty.

cowboywannabe
04-04-2012, 21:11
Not all opinions are created equal. As much as Ms. Marple's self-esteem classes in public school taught you that everyone was just as good as everyone else, that doesn't translate to everyone's opinion being of as much value.

Certain posters are authoritative in certain areas. If my ability to recognize excellence offends the populist advocates of Lake Woebegone, so be it. Theyre still authoritative, and you're tilting at windmills.

So what Constitutional hook are you hanging your argument on? Or is it simply an offense to your sensibility that you think SCOTUS should side with?

that minnesota guy tells some good stories...i get a chuckle regularly from him.

Sam Spade
04-04-2012, 21:23
that minnesota guy tells some good stories...i get a chuckle regularly from him.

I do, too. Lake Woebegone, where all the children are above average....If you like storytelling, look for "The Moth" channel on YouTube. Up and comers telling tales. Some great stuff in there.

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 22:52
Odd how LE agents have never come across a law they could not find a reason to enforce. As if "its the law" is somehow a good enough reason. I've yet to encounter a LEO that was against enforcing any law that was not an ex-LEO. It's always a diatribe about the "rule of law"; rather than the moral, ethical, or practical contribution to social order. Unfortunately most enforcers of the law see it only as a reason they should be able to not only tell others what to do, but have the power to force them to do so at gunpoint or under the threat of punishment also enforceable at gunpoint.

wprebeck
04-04-2012, 23:23
Odd how LE agents have never come across a law they could not find a reason to enforce. As if "its the law" is somehow a good enough reason. I've yet to encounter a LEO that was against enforcing any law that was not an ex-LEO. It's always a diatribe about the "rule of law"; rather than the moral, ethical, or practical contribution to social order. Unfortunately most enforcers of the law see it only as a reason they should be able to not only tell others what to do, but have the power to force them to do so at gunpoint or under the threat of punishment also enforceable at gunpoint.

Probably because we don't talk about that crap in public, but amongst ourselves. The law IS the law. It can be changed, try doing that. I, along with a few other folks, am personally responsible for changing two laws this legislative session.

Yep, I'm not only an officer, but a registered lobbyist. Patiently awaiting the nonsense to spew forth.


In any case, given enough public outcry, laws CAN be changed. We had a major revision to many of the criminal offenses last year. Privately, we disagreed with the changes. Publicly, we were silent.

Ever consider that being publicly outspoken about certain things isn't conducive to continued employement - rather, its best to use the discretion generally granted to us by the legislature and allow certain offenses to be dealt with as warnings or a simple chat?

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 23:33
...The law IS the law...

Just following orders I guess. Like I said never encountered an LEO that would not enforce a law they did not agree with that wasn't an ex-LEO. Jews must be shoveled into gas chambers. The law is the law after all. Granted that is a severe extreme but the mindset is still the same as well as the end result.

05DodgeDakota
04-04-2012, 23:38
It not about making our job easier, really it's the opposite. But it makes our job safer. And do you truly believe that all drugs should be legal and that there should be zero restrictions on guns? You must be a former inmate and felon yourself. I'm all about less restriction on individuals rights but I'm not gonna give a meth head a machine gun


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

wprebeck
04-04-2012, 23:43
Just following orders I guess. Like I said never encountered an LEO that would not enforce a law they did not agree with that wasn't an ex-LEO. Jews must be shoveled into gas chambers. The law is the law after all. Granted that is a severe extreme but the mindset is still the same as well as the end result.

And....we have a winner. Godwin's law, everyone.

Really, I love how assclowns such as yourself equate smoking weed to the eradication of an entire group of people based on the religion. You really don't have a credible argument when you throw that line out. And, you sound like an idiot.

juggy4711
04-04-2012, 23:45
It not about making our job easier, really it's the opposite. But it makes our job safer. And do you truly believe that all drugs should be legal and that there should be zero restrictions on guns? You must be a former inmate and felon yourself. I'm all about less restriction on individuals rights but I'm not gonna give a meth head a machine gun


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Fantastic. We should just leave it up to Congress who is who. I'm glad you are all about individual rights but are against them at the same time. WTF?

Give me one good reason why a meth head with a machine gun that has not committed any other crime besides doing meth and owning a machine gun, should be prevented from doing either?

cowboywannabe
04-05-2012, 00:17
Fantastic. We should just leave it up to Congress who is who. I'm glad you are all about individual rights but are against them at the same time. WTF?

Give me one good reason why a meth head with a machine gun that has not committed any other crime besides doing meth and owning a machine gun, should be prevented from doing either?

suppose meth was legal. do you personally trust a meth head with a gun? knowing what meth does to one's mental state. not guessing, not predicting, not minority reporting, but what it does to the mental state of all of its users.

05DodgeDakota
04-05-2012, 00:26
Fantastic. We should just leave it up to Congress who is who. I'm glad you are all about individual rights but are against them at the same time. WTF?

Give me one good reason why a meth head with a machine gun that has not committed any other crime besides doing meth and owning a machine gun, should be prevented from doing either?

Fine, I'll bite. Let me give you a senario. Said Meth geeker is currently very high, and has his M249 with him as he is hanging out in the street in front of your house. I assume based on your remarks you are perfectly ok with this right? What if he has committed prior violent felonies, but we dare not intrude of his second ammendment rights, because you say that the government has ZERO right to limit his right to do so? Your still ok with that as well right?

I mean, hell, since your in charge, let's not limit the "rights" of sexual offenders. They should be able to work in your kid's school right? They have rights too you know.

The Congress is suppose to be a representation of the people. You don't like them. So why don't you either run yourself, or vote for the congressmen who's agenda most closely represents your own. And don;t forget you can always GTFO


Give me a freakin' break...

juggy4711
04-05-2012, 00:26
And....we have a winner. Godwin's law, everyone.

Really, I love how assclowns such as yourself equate smoking weed to the eradication of an entire group of people based on the religion. You really don't have a credible argument when you throw that line out. And, you sound like an idiot.

I'm not the assclown that resulted to the law is the law BS as I predicted. Would you like me to give other examples that do not include Nazis or Jews? You get my point yet use predictable and pathetic references like Godwin's Law. Seriously?

You pull me over for a traffic violation and I have a loaded gun in my glove box, what do you do? Careful how you answer you might sound like an idiot. Oh wait your government granted power to tell me how to live my life at gunpoint trumps everything else. How silly of me to forget.

Truth is you are the assclown. Not only are you an assclown, but you are a bully that believes you have the right to tell me how to live. Get off your high horse, it might hurt to fall that far.

Oh I know I'm merely a pot head that wants to smoke weed at the expense of all the great and just LEO's that simply want to protect society from the evil that is marijuana.

Truth is you are a fraud in a long line of frauds. You do not believe in freedom rather tyranny. The tyranny to tell others how to live their lives regardless if it actually effects you or not. You simply desire the ability to command others as you see fit. You do not have a problem with my decisions in life, you have a problem with my ability to make the decisions without you.

cowboywannabe
04-05-2012, 00:40
dont be an assclown, and answer the meth head question: (high on meth) with a gun on his hip standing on the sidewalk looking at your house. he says:

"you have a nice house".

that he would "like to come in and look around but can wait"........

"oh, here is a picture of your mom i took while she was grocery shopping". "i almost bumped into her when i was lighting up". "she really got my attention".

"how does her house look"? "never mind, i'll ask her myself the next time i score some meth".

"i mean, im just sayin' yo".

You pull me over for a traffic violation and I have a loaded gun in my glove box, what do you do? Careful how you answer you might sound like an idiot. Oh wait your government granted power to tell me how to live my life at gunpoint trumps everything else. How silly of me to forget.

where did this off the wall scenario come from?

juggy4711
04-05-2012, 01:04
Fine, I'll bite. Let me give you a senario. Said Meth geeker is currently very high, and has his M249 with him as he is hanging out in the street in front of your house. I assume based on your remarks you are perfectly ok with this right? What if he has committed prior violent felonies, but we dare not intrude of his second ammendment rights, because you say that the government has ZERO right to limit his right to do so? Your still ok with that as well right?

I mean, hell, since your in charge, let's not limit the "rights" of sexual offenders. They should be able to work in your kid's school right? They have rights too you know.

The Congress is suppose to be a representation of the people. You don't like them. So why don't you either run yourself, or vote for the congressmen who's agenda most closely represents your own. And don;t forget you can always GTFO


Give me a freakin' break...

Wow let me be as rude as you are in my response. For starters how about go F yourself.

In follow up, yes I am perfectly OK with felons owning firearms. If one is too dangerous to own a gun then they should be to dangerous to live in the free world.

I'll one up you on scenarios. My exGF split up with me, decided to move back with her baby's daddy and he killed them both with an AR-15 he owned illegally. See he was a felon. Oh but that should have prevented it all...felons can't own guns right? BS. Preventing felons from owning firearms only serves to prevent felons that have actually turned their lives around from having the means to defend themselves, their property or the lives of their loved ones.

It is no different than Gun-Free school zones. Felons that want guns for nefarious reasons will have them no matter what. Criminals do not obey the law. There is simply no rationale reason one should be a free citizen, felon or not, and not be able to own a gun.

juggy4711
04-05-2012, 01:30
dont be an assclown, and answer the meth head question: (high on meth) with a gun on his hip standing on the sidewalk looking at your house. he says:

"you have a nice house".

that he would "like to come in and look around but can wait"........

"oh, here is a picture of your mom i took while she was grocery shopping". "i almost bumped into her when i was lighting up". "she really got my attention".

"how does her house look"? "never mind, i'll ask her myself the next time i score some meth".

"i mean, im just sayin' yo".

where did this off the wall scenario come from?

I did. Perhaps you did not like the answer. Well short of the government being involved I would let the meth high individual know that I would without hesitation kill someone that threatened me or my mother. Unfortunately that would likely get me arrested by some POS like you (see we can both play that game). If such an individual continued to pose a threat I would just blow them away and be done with it.

Sorry but you are going to have to do a lot better than some dude is high on something and threatening me and/or others to get me to concede my God given rights.

cowboywannabe
04-05-2012, 01:54
i said nothing about your God given rights. its the meth and other dope you like that i dont care for. it seems you have an undefeatable ignorance. i conceed to you the victory lest somebody confuse me as the fool.

05DodgeDakota
04-05-2012, 02:08
You actually have a valid point reguarding the felons but you are still missing the point. And your comments in your last post give responsible gun owners a bad rep

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

Mister_Beefy
04-05-2012, 03:03
Childish prattle doesn't make a sound argument, it just makes sound.


ironic statement coming from you. :rofl:

Blast
04-05-2012, 03:14
There be Ronulans afoot.http://www.mousecursorsdownload.com/data/soft_img/1330090383.gif

certifiedfunds
04-05-2012, 06:50
It not about making our job easier, really it's the opposite. But it makes our job safer. And do you truly believe that all drugs should be legal and that there should be zero restrictions on guns? You must be a former inmate and felon yourself. I'm all about less restriction on individuals rights but I'm not gonna give a meth head a machine gun


Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

:rofl:

Thank you for keeping guns out of the hands of drug users! Whew!!! What a relief!

certifiedfunds
04-05-2012, 06:53
suppose meth was legal. do you personally trust a meth head with a gun? knowing what meth does to one's mental state. not guessing, not predicting, not minority reporting, but what it does to the mental state of all of its users.

You mean heightened alertness and decreased reaction time?

Is that why the USAF gives it to pilots?

NDCent
04-05-2012, 07:28
And?

You think that bothers us? I've searched homeless people who literally had **** their pants so much, it was running out the bottom of the pants leg into their shoes. Drunks piss themselves all the time, too. The best I've heard of at my jail, was the homeless guy who took off his sock, and his frostbitten toe came with it.

You're trying to gross out a group of people who see the worst crap imaginable. No easy task, and a pair of poopy jeans just won't do it. I've personally watched people eat turds, and worse. Try again.

Wow, sure I didn't hit a nerve? Maybe you should go watch a few more episodes of "Jail". I'm happy seeing someone drop a steamy load during a squat and cough turns you on. :wavey:

Sam Spade
04-05-2012, 07:54
I'm noticing a distinct lack of Constitutional arguments and references to the foundations of our society from folk here. It is, after all, a constitutional issue. Neither can you muster anything that deals with the actual situation. You guys want to be taken seriously, but you can't bring yourselfs to cite or research anything that's pertinent. Instead, a bunch of off-topic bile is what you find persuasive?

This isn't about drugs, or your guns being taken away. It's about the state's compelling interest in providing a safe environment for both it's workers and the people in its custody vs an inmate's privacy. If you can't argue on that level, you're irrelevant. Sucks to take a hit to your ego like that, but there it is.

You want it to be one way. But it's the other.