Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Indiana Supreme Court: "What 4th amendment?" (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=576552)

  • May 16, 2011, 09:48 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    So by that logic the cops won't be bothering you at home right? Therefore the Indiana law is good since only bad people will get visits from the cops and they can do their job properly.

    Pay attention, NK. I never came remotely close to saying that. What I have said from the beginning is having no right to resist UNLAWFUL entry by the cops "ain't American" and is "just wrong." You may keep your 'logic' to yourself.
  • May 16, 2011, 09:48 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    the fact is that only those in communication with foreigners under suspicion of terrorist or jihadists activities that threatened the US came under this provision.

    Hello again, tom:

    In other words, you too, TRUST the government... As a card carrying right winger, you should be ashamed.

    Drug traffickers are suspected of terrorism.. Should the government SPY on all the drug users in the hopes of catching a terrorist... Or, maybe a dealer if a terrorist isn't available...

    How long before they start SPYING on them? Oh, I know, I know.. Drug users are on your list of people who don't deserve to be protected under the Constitution either. It's COOL with you that THOSE people get bugged... Frankly, I think they already are. If you were the government, wouldn't you?

    What OTHER groups shouldn't be entitled to Constitutional rights?? How about Democrats or gay people?

    Yup, you opened Pandora's Box, and then you complain when it comes back to bite you.

    excon
  • May 16, 2011, 09:49 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Fr_Chuck View Post
    Then we also go back to many states laws, where you can not use force in merely the protection of property, so even if a robber is in your home and is just stealing the TV, in many states you can not stop them with force.

    In Texas I have that right.
  • May 16, 2011, 09:52 AM
    smoothy
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    In Texas I have that right.

    In Virginia we do too. And can open carry most places as well (which I can't exercise because I cross state lines daily).
  • May 16, 2011, 10:18 AM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    What I have said from the beginning is having no right to resist UNLAWFUL entry by the cops "ain't American" and is "just wrong."

    How will you know if your phone conversations or emails are being spied on unlawfully?
  • May 16, 2011, 10:29 AM
    tomder55

    The 4th amendment guards against unreasonable searches .
    I contend that a surveillance on someone communicating with jihadist terrorists is reasonable .

    In the case in the op. I think it was reasonable ,given the cirumstances ,for the cop to enter the apartment .

    You'd have to give me the specific case where the government was tapping a drug user just because he was a drug user . As for the Democrats or gay people... there is no reasonable justification to eaves drop on them as a 'group ' .

    I think listening in to a person talking to a jihadist is a very narrow parameter that falls well within the probable cause definition. Unlike you,I don't use illogic to twist that into a pretzel that claims broad groups of people are losing their Constitutional rights.
  • May 17, 2011, 08:22 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    not just the government, which is only supposed to be monitoring communications into and out of the US

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by excon View Post
    In other words, you TRUST the government. Bwa, ha ha ha ha.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    You have never seen me say that.

    Hello again, Steve:

    Ok, now's your chance... You used the words "supposed to" above.. If you didn't BELIEVE that's what they were going to do, THAT was the time to say so... You didn't.

    Do you NOW believe that the government is SPYING on you BEYOND what they are authorized to do??

    Come on, Steve, you can tell me. I won't tell tom.

    excon
  • May 17, 2011, 09:15 AM
    excon

    Hello again,

    Let's call a spade a spade... In terms of POLICE and SECURITY matters, you, tom and smoothy, TRUST the government. In terms of SOCIAL matters, you don't.

    Clearly, that's more a matter of IDEOLOGY rather than an inherent distrust of government...

    Me, on the other hand, just plain don't trust the government.

    excon
  • May 17, 2011, 09:27 AM
    tomder55

    Paranoia big destroyer...

    What a life you must lead... assuming that because the government is listening in to a conversation between a jihadist and his domestic contact that they care about what you say . The only reason they would listen to me is if they forgot to take their melatonin dose and needed a quick nap.
  • May 17, 2011, 09:44 AM
    NeedKarma
    So let the cops search your home whether they have cause or not - you have nothing to hide right? Right?

    And why they even come near your home... you're a boring guy who doesn't talk to terrorrist, so why are you worried about the Indiana ruling?
  • May 17, 2011, 09:52 AM
    tomder55

    The judge got it wrong. I already said the cops did the right thing. The judge is wrong in saying a person doesn't have the right to resist an unlawful entry. The trial judge was also wrong in not allowing the defendant to make his case to the jury.
  • May 17, 2011, 09:56 AM
    excon
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    What a life you must lead.... assuming that because the government is listening in to a conversation between a jihadist and his domestic contact that they care about what you say .

    Hello again, tom:

    If I live my life NOT trusting the government, then I'm in good company. I don't mind being associated with Thomas Jefferson.

    You, if anybody, should understand the long term implications of the destruction of the Fourth Amendment... If you DON'T, then I've given you wayyyy too much credit as a historian. If you DO, then you are looking the other way because of short term political expedience...

    Either way, it's dangerous stuff.

    excon

    PS> Am I to determine from your post that you've just been joshing about not trusting Obama and Holder? Nahhhh. You're STILL paranoid... What a life YOU must lead!
  • May 17, 2011, 10:16 AM
    tomder55

    As an historian I understand that there are more protections under the 4th now than there have ever been. To my knowledge the President or any President in my life time has not gone into anyone's home ;wisked them away and put them in a concentration camp for the duration of the war like the liberal champion Roosevelt did to the Japanese-Americans as a group .The liberal SCOTUS found that perfectly acceptable by the way I bet they wish the only thing the President did was listen to their phone calls.

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:57 AM.