GlockTalk.com
Home Forums Classifieds Blogs Today's Posts Search Social Groups



  
SIGN-UP
Notices

Glock Talk
Welcome To The Glock Talk Forums.

 
  
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-17-2011, 09:48   #61
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
5 Facts of the King case:

1. Police created the exigency. Warrantless searches were traditionally prohibited under those circumstances.

2. Police had the wrong apartment. They guessed.

3. The door knock was not the casual knock and talk. It was an assertive knock that meant business.

4. The exigency was based on Officer Cobb’s testimony that “something moved.”

5. Cobb’s claim of evidence destruction was wrong.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 09:49   #62
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
And, yes, I have read the case.
If you've read the case, why are you asking the most basic questions about the case?
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 10:22   #63
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
I reread this thread. This problem must be deeper than I thought because I only imagined it to be perspective. I don't know how one begins addressing a government problem when the people discussing it don't even know the basic branches of government and their functions.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:00   #64
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
If you've read the case, why are you asking the most basic questions about the case?
Because you omit the answers in your version, facts that are part of the story, you know, that "totality of circumstances" thing.

See, you don't like the SCOTUS ruling, so therefore you do not like the facts supporting the ruling. That's simple to understand and reason enough for you to ignore those facts.

What's important here, and in any many, many investigations, is the sequence of events that led the Court to rule that the officers' actions did not create the exigency. Again, this you do not like or agree with, but it is fact, and contributed to the SCOTUS ruling.

I and others in this thread do understand your position and why you ignore certain facts and refuse to answer any question about those facts.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:20   #65
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
5 Facts of the King case:

1. Police created the exigency. Warrantless searches were traditionally prohibited under those circumstances.
No they did not. The exigency existed before they announced they were going to enter. It is so stated in the SCOTUS ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
2. Police had the wrong apartment. They guessed.
They did not "guess". They followed an evidence trail - the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
3. The door knock was not the casual knock and talk. It was an assertive knock that meant business.
This was covered in the SCOTUS ruling. There is no standard of "how loudly" or "how forcefully" police are required to announce or knock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
4. The exigency was based on Officer Cobb’s testimony that “something moved.”
Actually, the testimony included in the SCOTUS ruling is, “could hear people inside moving,” and “[i]t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
5. Cobb’s claim of evidence destruction was wrong.
Well, you got 1 out of 5, but your "1" right had no bearing on the Court's decision.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:34   #66
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You are part the problem. Law enforcement is one branch of government, equal with the other two branches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
The police fall under executive. They enforce laws.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
I reread this thread. This problem must be deeper than I thought because I only imagined it to be perspective. I don't know how one begins addressing a government problem when the people discussing it don't even know the basic branches of government and their functions.
Quote:
http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/federal.shtml

U.S. Federal Government
The three branches of U.S. government—legislative, judicial, and executive—carry out governmental power and functions.
  • Executive Branch
    The executive branch of the government is responsible for enforcing the laws of the land. The president, vice president, department heads (cabinet members), and heads of independent agencies carry out this mission.
  • Judicial Branch
    Courts decide arguments about the meaning of laws and how they are applied. They also decide if laws violate the Constitution—this is known as judicial review, and it is how federal courts provide checks and balances on the legislative and executive branches.
  • Legislative Branch
    Article I of the Constitution establishes the legislative or law making branch of government. It has a two-branch Congress—the Senate and the House of Representatives—and agencies that support Congress.
Now, where is law enforcement a Branch? Enforcing the law is a function of the Executive Branch.

Now that we all understand...
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921

Last edited by RussP; 06-17-2011 at 11:37..
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:42   #67
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Yes, exigencies have changed. Police created the exigent circumstance in King. The actions resulting from that creation were traditionally unacceptable.
Cite needed. Two, actually; one for the changing and one for the police creation in King.

Thanks in advance.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:50   #68
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Now that we all understand...
You still don't understand. These police are not federal. There is an equivalent branch structure at other levels, including state, city, county, etc.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 11:51   #69
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post
Cite needed.
Is this an Abbott and Costello sketch?
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:12   #70
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Is this an Abbott and Costello sketch?
If it is, I'm the straight man.

You aren't posting anything to support your claims. Why should anyone take them seriously, especially when you've already shown other pieces of the thread where you don't know what you're talking about (exigency's definition and the form of our government)?

So what's the deal? You want people to think about what you're saying and consider it seriously? Or are you just looking for a chance to hear yourself talk?
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:12   #71
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
No they did not. The exigency existed before they announced they were going to enter. It is so stated in the SCOTUS ruling.
That's correct. They created the exigency.


They did not "guess". They followed an evidence trail - the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment.
The bloodhounds followed it to the wrong apartment.

This was covered in the SCOTUS ruling. There is no standard of "how loudly" or "how forcefully" police are required to announce or knock.
Look at what was said and the totality. A casual knock and talk is not the same as their circumstances.

Actually, the testimony included in the SCOTUS ruling is, “could hear people inside moving,” and “[i]t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment.
What's moving? Furniture? Did they hear a marijuana bag being lifted from the table?

”Well, you got 1 out of 5, but your "1" right had no bearing on the Court's decision.
Another botched case that goes on the books.
.....
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 12:19   #72
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Spade View Post

You aren't posting anything to support your claims.
Do you know how to look up a case? There's a new invention out. It's called a search engine. Even Russ "I ask a million questions" The Moderator finally looked something up.

You're also one of the posters who doesn't comprehend that law enforcment is a government function.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 13:33   #73
Sam Spade
Lifetime Membership
Senior Member
 
Sam Spade's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 21,499
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Do you know how to look up a case? There's a new invention out. It's called a search engine. Even Russ "I ask a million questions" The Moderator finally looked something up.

You're also one of the posters who doesn't comprehend that law enforcment is a government function.
I think you'll have more fun talking to yourself.

Later.
__________________
"To spit on your hands and lower the pike; to stand fast over the body of Leonidas the King; to be rear guard at Kunu-Ri; to stand and be still to the Birkenhead Drill; these are not rational acts. They are often merely necessary." Pournelle
Sam Spade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 14:51   #74
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You are part the problem. Law enforcement is one branch of government, equal with the other two branches.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
You still don't understand. These police are not federal. There is an equivalent branch structure at other levels, including state, city, county, etc.
Yes, I do understand. The various levels of government have the same three branches, the executive branch being the one charged with enforcing the law. The Law enforcement agency itself is not one of the three branches of government. It, the agency, carries out the orders of the executive branch, the executive branch being directly responsible for the enforcement of the law. The agency is just the means to do so.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 15:12   #75
volsbear
Lifetime Membership
IWannaBeSedated
 
volsbear's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Illinois
Posts: 12,255
Fed - judicial, legislative, executive.
State - judicial, legislative, executive.
County - judicial, legislative, executive.
My city of 150,000 - judicial, legislative, executive.
A po-dunk city of 6,000 down the road - judicial, legislative executive.

These branches of government are common to every layer and level.

State level (what we're talking about here)...
Judicial - county/circuit/district courts, appellate courts, supreme court
Legislative - one or more chambers of an elected representative voting body
Executive - governor, regulatory agencies, tax collection agencies, POLICE.

The police are a FUNCTION of the executive branch of government - one of the many types of public agencies that carry out the will of the people as expressed by the laws voted on and passed by their elected representatives.

You blame the police. Fine. By doing so, you expose yourself as being completely unaware or unwilling to accept the fact that the police only carry out the laws passed by the legislative branch within the confines of the interpretations made by the judicial branch. If you believe the police run amuck, fine. But ultimately your beef is not with the police. The job of the police is to enforce the laws as aggressively as possible within the confines of the law. If you feel the law is inappropriate or is being inappropriately interpreted, your beef is with the legislative or the judiciary.
__________________
"Fast is fine. But accuracy is final."

"He'd look better with lividity" - BlueIron

Black Rifle Club - RRA-PSG
S&W Club - 22227
volsbear is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 15:19   #76
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
No they did not. The exigency existed before they announced they were going to enter. It is so stated in the SCOTUS ruling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
That's correct. They created the exigency.
No, the Court ruled based on evidence in this case and prior precedence that knocking and announcing "Police" did not and does not meet the test for creating exigency.

Quote the section of the decision that contradicts that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
They did not "guess". They followed an evidence trail - the smell of marijuana coming from the apartment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
The bloodhounds followed it to the wrong apartment.
Right apartment or left apartment, in the totality of circumstances, the odor was there and it created PC for further investigation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
This was covered in the SCOTUS ruling. There is no standard of "how loudly" or "how forcefully" police are required to announce or knock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Look at what was said and the totality. A casual knock and talk is not the same as their circumstances.
I did. You are the one not seeing what the Court said. Again, there is no standard of "how loudly" or "how forcefully" police are required to announce or knock.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Actually, the testimony included in the SCOTUS ruling is, “could hear people inside moving,” and “[i]t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
What's moving? Furniture? Did they hear a marijuana bag being lifted from the table?
Again, the actual testimony included in the SCOTUS ruling is, “could hear people inside moving,” and “[i]t sounded as [though] things were being moved inside the apartment.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by RussP View Post
Well, you got 1 out of 5, but your "1" right had no bearing on the Court's decision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Another botched case that goes on the books.
Botched? SCOTUS did not see it as "botched". The conviction stands. Bad guy is in jail.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 15:22   #77
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthCarolinaLiberty View Post
Do you know how to look up a case? There's a new invention out. It's called a search engine. Even Russ "I ask a million questions" The Moderator finally looked something up.

You're also one of the posters who doesn't comprehend that law enforcment is a government function.
Actually, I'd read the case very early on. I just got tired of you misrepresenting the facts in the incident and the ruling.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 15:23   #78
RussP
Moderator
 
RussP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Central Virginia
Posts: 45,550
Blog Entries: 64
Thank you, volsbear.
Quote:
Originally Posted by volsbear View Post
Fed - judicial, legislative, executive.
State - judicial, legislative, executive.
County - judicial, legislative, executive.
My city of 150,000 - judicial, legislative, executive.
A po-dunk city of 6,000 down the road - judicial, legislative executive.

These branches of government are common to every layer and level.

State level (what we're talking about here)...
Judicial - county/circuit/district courts, appellate courts, supreme court
Legislative - one or more chambers of an elected representative voting body
Executive - governor, regulatory agencies, tax collection agencies, POLICE.

The police are a FUNCTION of the executive branch of government - one of the many types of public agencies that carry out the will of the people as expressed by the laws voted on and passed by their elected representatives.

You blame the police. Fine. By doing so, you expose yourself as being completely unaware or unwilling to accept the fact that the police only carry out the laws passed by the legislative branch within the confines of the interpretations made by the judicial branch. If you believe the police run amuck, fine. But ultimately your beef is not with the police. The job of the police is to enforce the laws as aggressively as possible within the confines of the law. If you feel the law is inappropriate or is being inappropriately interpreted, your beef is with the legislative or the judiciary.
__________________
Freedom has a taste to those who fight and almost die, that the protected will never know.

"Comment is free, but facts are sacred." C.P. Scott, 1921
RussP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 15:33   #79
NorthCarolinaLiberty
MentalDefective
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Tax Funded Mental Institution
Posts: 5,144
Blog Entries: 1
Government run amok can't be understood unless you look at the totality: making laws, enforcing laws, interpreting laws. They are equal. They all are cogs in the wheel of big government.

Denial of the police role in that totality is to deny reality. Law enforcement administratively aims for wide discretion in street situations and interactions, but they would like to politically downplay that discretion.

You only have to compare the U.S. to other countries to understand the context. A government like the Philippines is not considered strong. This includes police. Filipinos do not fear the police. Police can fear the people. Each part of Filipino government is perceived just like the other parts.

Americans often fear the police, similar to public reaction in dictatorial, oppressive, or closed countries.
NorthCarolinaLiberty is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-17-2011, 15:45   #80
trifecta
Senior Member
 
trifecta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: DFW
Posts: 1,958
Charlotte offers connecting flights for anyone in the North Carolina area wanting to permanently experience the glory of living in the Philippines.
__________________
Your laminated Chuck Norris Fan Club card won't do you any good when you walk onto a 2 way range.
trifecta is offline   Reply With Quote

 
  
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 16:56.




Homepage
FAQ
Forums
Calendar
Advertise
Gallery
GT Wiki
GT Blogs
Social Groups
Classifieds


Users Currently Online: 995
271 Members
724 Guests

Most users ever online: 2,672
Aug 11, 2014 at 2:31