Texas Court Rules That Police May Introduce Illegally-Gathered Evidence At Trial

[diveRN]

... there to "protect and serve" as they are sworn to do ...

The definitions of "sworn" and "Constitutional duty" may differ somewhat, but LEOs have no legal obligation to protect you in spite of what it says on many police cars. That's just a PR pitch.

WASHINGTON, June 27 (2005) - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.

As a California resident, I'm fortunate that we have a fairly responsible, conservative police dept in my city. Even so, I've trained my wife and son to never let a LEO into the house (or her car) without a search warrant. If they come at the situation with weapons drawn then they can do whatever they please at that moment, but the very first call is going to be to a lawyer, hopefully while they're still there.

 

[dustycorgill]

Wow! I found this to be incredibly insulting and unnecessary. Kong didn't say anything about shooting it out with the cops; he merely stated that he would stand up for his Constitutional rights. How can that be objectionable??

"Militia" seems to be the liberal hot term of the month, as I've seen it brought up in non-gun forums and used as a slur against someone who wasn't drinking the liberal kool-ade.

Then I look at the bottom of MPA's post and see "California Highway Patrol". Oh. Now I get it.

Agree, I know it is important to know the laws, but dont go calling people "militia minded". That is just judging them, and I have seen CHP at the bottom of your signature and have read that you are supposedly BATFE.....have I called you names yet MPA? Fact is YOU may have never used your authority to abuse peoples rights, but that doesnt mean some of your "brothers" havent. My point is there are good LEO, lots of them, but there are some bad apples. You guys dont like being judged and name called because of the actions of a few so show some respect and dont do it to other folks.

 

[NOLA Jack]

Really I just wish he'd get banned already, and I've never wished that on anyone here! Read his post history- the guy is nothing but a troll.

Yep

 

[MPA1988]

As a California resident, I'm fortunate that we have a fairly responsible, conservative police dept in my city. Even so, I've trained my wife and son to never let a LEO into the house (or her car) without a search warrant. If they come at the situation with weapons drawn then they can do whatever they please at that moment, but the very first call is going to be to a lawyer, hopefully while they're still there.

That is the appropriate course of action.

 

[breakingcontact]

That is the appropriate course of action.

And the founding fathers should have just kept petitioning the king...

 

[MPA1988]

Agree, I know it is important to know the laws, but dont go calling people "militia minded". That is just judging them, and I have seen CHP at the bottom of your signature and have read that you are supposedly BATFE.....have I called you names yet MPA? Fact is YOU may have never used your authority to abuse peoples rights, but that doesnt mean some of your "brothers" havent. My point is there are good LEO, lots of them, but there are some bad apples. You guys dont like being judged and name called because of the actions of a few so show some respect and dont do it to other folks.

No doubt there are bad apples. In fact, in my career, I participated in getting rid of a few.

 

[bones_708]

Hate to get the thread off track and back on the original topic and away from the gleeful anticipation of shooting cops. The article linked is not a news story, not even close. It is an opinion piece with many arguable statements which ignores the legal argument in the case to rail about police injustice. The only question for the court is if the warrant was good. The author of the opinion piece would have you believe that info gathered on the initial search was used to secure the warrant for the second search. The DA said that wasn't so. That the info to secure the warrant had nothing at all to do with anything that happened or was seen during the arrest but was based on information given by a third party. The court didn't allow any evidence from before the warrant so nothing seized in the initial safety sweep was used against the defendant.

Personally while I get the concern for the "slippery slope" of such a ruling pretending this is a new thing is inaccurate in my opinion and without such an ability it slant the system a bit to much towards protectionism.

 

[Sapper740]

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I747 using Tapatalk

bc, I respect you more with every post.

 

[Major Kong]

Hate to get the thread off track and back on the original topic and away from the gleeful anticipation of shooting cops.

Nowhere have a seen anyone talk about "the gleeful anticipation of shooting cops".

Sent from my XT907 using Tapatalk

 

[breakingcontact]

No doubt there are bad apples. In fact, in my career, I participated in getting rid of a few.

Great. You helped get rid of the ones outside of the law but you are fine with unjust laws which violate our Constitutional rights.

 

[Younggun]

Well, duh.

 

[bones_708]

Nowhere have a seen anyone talk about "the gleeful anticipation of shooting cops".

Oh?

Shoot first, ask questions later

Rebellion against tyrants is obedience to God.

This type of action may be the only thing that halts the increasingly ridiculous use of military tactics against US citizens by our own governing bodies.

And the black robed tyrants side with the jack booted thugs each and every time. Good luck on "justice" when the coyotes sit in judgement of the jackals on sheep-killin' day.

And this is just on this short thread and ignores the attaboys and comments on other threads by armed resistance crowd.

 

[jrbfishn]

Sometimes, if you do not shoot first, you may never get the chance.
Rebellion does not always mean violent.
Isn't that the action our forefathers used against thier governing body in response to undue force?
And of course we all know that no cop, DA, or judge has ever lied, done wrong, or gone against the constitution and never will. It is us simple minded peasants who just don' understand them.



Sent by a idjit coffeeholic

 

[MPA1988]

.........but you are fine with unjust laws which violate our Constitutional rights.

If you say so.

 

[breakingcontact]

Putin taking over Crimea is a good parallel. The EU is just appalled by what is happening there. They say "but what of international law!?". Putin understands force and respects force. Thats why he doesn't respect the EU or BHO. There has been more bloodshed than we are hearing about of course but mostly it is the presence of the military or the masked armed men. Just the mere threat and capacity of force.

Hitler did the same thing. He shamed Chamberlain and the League of Nations. He didnt respect them. He didn't respect the Weimar Republic. He just used those who were civilized until they no longer served a purpose then brushed them aside and applied force.

Well what of our Constitutional rights? We can sit around and cry about it like the EU over Crimea or go along with this like Chamberlain, always making "one final concession" with the hope of peace. Its either that or we can wake up, demand what is ours under God and the Constitution now, by any means necessary.

 

[MPA1988]

Hate to get the thread off track and back on the original topic and away from the gleeful anticipation of shooting cops. The article linked is not a news story, not even close. It is an opinion piece with many arguable statements which ignores the legal argument in the case to rail about police injustice. The only question for the court is if the warrant was good. The author of the opinion piece would have you believe that info gathered on the initial search was used to secure the warrant for the second search. The DA said that wasn't so. That the info to secure the warrant had nothing at all to do with anything that happened or was seen during the arrest but was based on information given by a third party. The court didn't allow any evidence from before the warrant so nothing seized in the initial safety sweep was used against the defendant.

Personally while I get the concern for the "slippery slope" of such a ruling pretending this is a new thing is inaccurate in my opinion and without such an ability it slant the system a bit to much towards protectionism.

Good response and good post. Please see my first post in this thread re: exclusionary rule. With your post here, and my post re: exclusionary rule, this thread is now "game, set, match". It's over. I am finished with this thread.

 

[Younggun]

Gonna be an obese troll.

 

[breakingcontact]

Gonna be an obese troll.

I suppose ill just have to join a former CHP forum full of people against constitutional rights to keep the internets balanced.

 

[bones_708]

Its either that or we can wake up, demand what is ours under God and the Constitution now, by any means necessary.

It's funny how you think your understanding of the constitution is the only correct one. Of course you just happen to ignore the body that the constitution says is supposed to decide these issues if they don't agree with you. Seems you are only concerned with the parts of the constitution you agree with. You probably haven't given more than a sentence or two to actually discuss the ruling while the judge who made the ruling wrote a 30 page opinion explaining it. But yelling "Jack Booted Thugs!" while actually ignoring the issues is probably a better way to go because because if you have to have a real discussion people will see how you can't back up your rhetoric. Whining about liberals while aping them is a bit sad.

 

[Mexican_Hippie]

I get that most militias are viewed negatively but it wasn't always so.

Maybe we need MORE militias to make them mainstream and marginalize the crazy ones out there. At their core they're about serving and protecting their community voluntarily. We've allowed some crazies to change that because many of the decent militias were dismantled.

I see them like anything else in a free society. If they are plentiful and you have choices then the better militias will win out when it comes to participation and resources.