3rd Amendment being ignored as well

I just want to take a post-independence day moment to give a shout-out to STY for being so vigilant about the Consititution & our rights. He takes a fair share of BS on this board, but he's a true believer.

I don't say that facetiously either. I just can't muster the same concern. I feel free & okay w/ my rights, but I know that they can be a fragile thing. Still, I'm just too busy & preoccupied, as I think most Americans are.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
so you don't care much about how badly police abuse their authority since you think you'll get money out of it?
Click to expand...

No....that's not what I am saying....What I am saying is that WHEN THEY DO....the citizen has a recourse....that recourse is hitting them where it hurts....their budgets. If enough people do that, it enforces the already existing checks and balances against such behavior.

I do find it funny though...back when Obama started his first term....righties were all outraged over Dr. Gates' (Harvard professor) reaction after being arrested for "burgalarizing" his own home(he locked himself out).....and criticized Obama for saying that the police acted "stupidly". Where were you on that issue?
 
Thing1 said:
I just want to take a post-independence day moment to give a shout-out to STY for being so vigilant about the Consititution & our rights. He takes a fair share of BS on this board, but he's a true believer.

I don't say that facetiously either. I just can't muster the same concern. I feel free & okay w/ my rights, but I know that they can be a fragile thing. Still, I'm just too busy & preoccupied, as I think most Americans are.
Click to expand...

Yes, but at the same time, I would not like to live in the Wild West, again.
 
Rana said:
Yes, but at the same time, I would not like to live in the Wild West, again.
Click to expand...

I hear thee. I don't agree w/ STY much, but I do respect his views as a true believer. I'm okay disagreeing w/ people - but he ain't no troll, and I do have to appreciate that on this board. And he does give me a different perspective, which is kind of what I come here for.
 
Steelplate said:
Then I'd go to jail...and if they put a few lumps on my head? All the better. I'd be on the horn to my lawyer faster than you can say "personal injury".
Click to expand...

Yeah, and then 6 years later, the officer would be exempted, good faith and all, and you'd still have to pay everything.
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
Yeah, and then 6 years later, the officer would be exempted, good faith and all, and you'd still have to pay everything.
Click to expand...

It's not about the money.....it's about the principle....and that's where we as citizens need to step up. If no one.challenges them at all because "it might get dismissed", then how do you expect it to stop? Let me guess....vote Republican....lol
 
Steelplate said:
It's not about the money.....it's about the principle....and that's where we as citizens need to step up. If no one.challenges them at all because "it might get dismissed", then how do you expect it to stop? Let me guess....vote Republican....lol
Click to expand...

Oh you misunderstand. I'm not against challenging it, I'm all for it. I'd fight everything the cops do, and demand budget cuts every year. But I'm telling you that you (in this case your generation) demanded such overarching police powers.

And I vote Libertarian, if you hadn't noticed.
 
LORD of the FISHFLYS said:
Oh you misunderstand. I'm not against challenging it, I'm all for it. I'd fight everything the cops do, and demand budget cuts every year. But I'm telling you that you (in this case your generation) demanded such overarching police powers.

And I vote Libertarian, if you hadn't noticed.
Click to expand...

Oh....so you crumble up your ballot and toss it in the trash? Just kidding. I actually have a lot of Libertarian leanings, mostly regarding personal choices. But Libertarianism falls apart for me when it comes to the idea that societal problems aren't societal problems, but individual problems.
 
Steelplate said:
No....that's not what I am saying....What I am saying is that WHEN THEY DO....the citizen has a recourse....that recourse is hitting them where it hurts....their budgets. If enough people do that, it enforces the already existing checks and balances against such behavior.
Click to expand...
lawsuits and settlements do not affect their budgets at all. this is why cities carry insurance policies, just for this very thing. so your actions don't really do anything to prohibit such behavior. the only thing that does is personal accountability.

Steelplate said:
I do find it funny though...back when Obama started his first term....righties were all outraged over Dr. Gates' (Harvard professor) reaction after being arrested for "burgalarizing" his own home(he locked himself out).....and criticized Obama for saying that the police acted "stupidly". Where were you on that issue?
Click to expand...
that the cop fucked up big time, obama should not have gotten involved.
 
Professor Baxter said:
And I have seen video where they cleared houses sending the inhabitants running into the streets with their hands up. If anyone had resisted I am sure it would have gotten a lot worse, but Bostonians have had the Red Sox teaching them how to fold for years.

Click to expand...

i do not support police barging into peoples homes without cause, or violating 3rd/4th amendment rights.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
lawsuits and settlements do not affect their budgets at all. this is why cities carry insurance policies, just for this very thing. so your actions don't really do anything to prohibit such behavior. the only thing that does is personal accountability.

that the cop fucked up big time, obama should not have gotten involved.
Click to expand...

Ok....

A: what do you suggest? Shoot cops?

B. Dr. Gates is a very respected Historian from a very respected school. Obama made a statement and invited them for a beer....if you think that's "getting involved" to a destructive degree? Then you probably fall into the category of hater....no matter whether he would have gotten involved or not.
 
Steelplate said:
Ok....

A: what do you suggest? Shoot cops?
Click to expand...
if it comes to it, yes. my guess it that too many people will be too cowardly to band together for it though.

Steelplate said:
B. Dr. Gates is a very respected Historian from a very respected school. Obama made a statement and invited them for a beer....if you think that's "getting involved" to a destructive degree? Then you probably fall into the category of hater....no matter whether he would have gotten involved or not.
Click to expand...
hater? of what? it was a local issue that should have been handled locally, not having obama get involved. it made it smack of racism and that's not what was needed at a presidential level. if that's hating, you have a deluded viewpoint of reality.
 
I Love America said:
While I find what the police did offensive and obviously an abuse of power, does the 3rd Amendment apply here since they aren't considered soldiers per se? I guess one could argue that the police are increasingly using military tactics, but I wonder what the courts would say.
Click to expand...
how could they not be considered soldiers, especially since they are armed with weapons of war that don't belong on the streets?
 
Steelplate said:
It's not about the money.....it's about the principle....and that's where we as citizens need to step up. If no one.challenges them at all because "it might get dismissed", then how do you expect it to stop? Let me guess....vote Republican....lol
Click to expand...
this tells me you have absolutely no concept of how difficult it is to do what you are saying.

http://www.reviewjournal.com/news/c...n-award-las-vegas-police-excessive-force-case

A federal appeals court has ruled three Metropolitan Police Department officers must pay $1.6 million for using excessive force on Charles Barnard in 2001.

get that? from 2001. who has the mental and emotional strength to deal with this BS when the government has unlimited resources to defend itself with?

In a 21-page ruling last week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals denied an appeal by officers Greg Theobald, Steven Radmanovich and Gary Clark who claimed they had “qualified immunity,” which shields government officials from civil liability if their conduct does not violate constitutional rights that a reasonable person would have known.

The appellate court held “a reasonable officer would have known it violated clearly established law to use a chokehold on a non-resisting arrestee who had surrendered, pepper-spray him and apply such knee pressure on his neck and back that it would cause the collapse of five vertebrae in his cervical spine.”

The court also said the officers were not entitled to immunity because a 2011 jury verdict was supported by “substantial evidence.”
Click to expand...

TEN YEARS to get to trial....TEN YEARS

He sued the officers and the Police Department in 2003 for civil rights violations.

Then federal judge Brian Sandoval ruled in favor of the department and the officers and tossed the case.

But Barnard won an appeal and the right to take the three officers to trial.

After a week-long trial, the jury awarded Barnard $2.1 million. The award was later reduced to $1.6 million by a judge, who lowered the attorney fees in the case.
Click to expand...

and in the end, neither the city, the department, or the police officers directly will pay any of this money. It's either an insurance fund for the city, the police union, or the taxpayers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top