Welcome to ECCIE, become a part of the fastest growing adult community. Take a minute & sign up!

Welcome to ECCIE - Sign up today!

Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!

Go Premium

Go Back   ECCIE Worldwide > General Interest > The Political Forum
test
The Political Forum Discuss anything related to politics in this forum. World politics, US Politics, State and Local.

Most Favorited Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Most Liked Images
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
  • Thumb
Top Reviewers
cockalatte 646
MoneyManMatt 490
Still Looking 399
samcruz 399
Jon Bon 396
Harley Diablo 377
honest_abe 362
DFW_Ladies_Man 313
Chung Tran 288
lupegarland 287
nicemusic 285
You&Me 281
Starscream66 279
George Spelvin 265
sharkman29 255
Top Posters
DallasRain70793
biomed163231
Yssup Rider60955
gman4453294
LexusLover51038
offshoredrilling48654
WTF48267
pyramider46370
bambino42591
CryptKicker37218
The_Waco_Kid37009
Mokoa36496
Chung Tran36100
Still Looking35944
Mojojo33117

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 11-10-2018, 10:40 PM   #16
Wakeup
Valerie's Mod Husband
 
Wakeup's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 13, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 28,030
Encounters: 4
Default

Stop...get back on topic.
Wakeup is offline   Quote
Old 11-10-2018, 11:19 PM   #17
The_Waco_Kid
AKA Admiral Waco Kid
 
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 8, 2010
Location: The MAGA Zone
Posts: 37,009
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman View Post
Maybe he could have obeyed the law. The police were following the process
He should have followed the process to get them back without[ violence.
well i'm gonna agree with Munchman here. the law's constitutionality is in flux but at the time of the incident it was in force. how that plays out remains to be seen. The man saw this as a "guilt before even being convicted" egregious violation. i get that. however his better call would have been not to lose his cool and provoke a response.

you aren't going to win this type of confrontation once it escalates. the cops aren't clocking out at 5pm. well they will but the night shift will take over. he would have been better served by using the law to fight the law, not fighting the police.
The_Waco_Kid is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 01:31 AM   #18
garhkal
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 21, 2010
Location: reynoldsburg, ohio
Posts: 3,271
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
Is that what the warrant said?

At the risk of having a mob (or MOD!) dispatched to my residence I will address the extreme you have suggested above .....

... and I will ask you back a similar more germane question:

SO he should have just SHOT THE OFFICERS trying to serve the lawful court order to confiscate the firearms from him?

No, he should have simply told the officers "You are not coming in, till i have my lawyer present, to validate and if necessary challenge this unlawful court order".


Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman View Post

He should have followed the process to get them back without[ violence.

And exactly what IS that process??
So far all i've seen is that these 'red-flag' laws, ALLOW Almost anyone to make a 'claim' you are a danger, and BAM your guns get taken. I've yet to see anything on them, where it says you can challnge it..
garhkal is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 02:15 AM   #19
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
No, he should have simply told the officers "You are not coming in, till i have my lawyer present, to validate and if necessary challenge this unlawful court order".

With a court order to enter the premises and take possession of the items stated in the court order the citizen HAS NO RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT. That's TV BS.

The officers armed with the warrant: (1) knock (2) explain their purpose and authority showing a copy to the person answering the door (3) the person answering the door allows them to enter to execute the warrant .... if

(4) no answer ... the officers open the door.
(5) if the person refuses ... they arrest the person for interference with a lawful search and enter the premises to execute the warrant. [If the person uses any force to resist the arrest then additional charges of assault on a police officer will be added to the resisting search charge. If the person brandishes a deadly weapon and/or assaults the officers with a deadly weapon they have the RIGHT to defend themselves with deadly force.]

He gets a lawyer when he gets to jail or his family gets one while an autopsy is being performed by the medical examiner.

If one critically examines "resisting arrest" statutes and the case law explaining them ... a later conclusion that the arrest was "unlawful" doesn't provide the citizen with a defense to assault on the police officer. One litigates the validity of the arrest in court not on the street.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 02:53 AM   #20
The_Waco_Kid
AKA Admiral Waco Kid
 
The_Waco_Kid's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 8, 2010
Location: The MAGA Zone
Posts: 37,009
Encounters: 1
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
With a court order to enter the premises and take possession of the items stated in the court order the citizen HAS NO RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT. That's TV BS.

The officers armed with the warrant: (1) knock (2) explain their purpose and authority showing a copy to the person answering the door (3) the person answering the door allows them to enter to execute the warrant .... if

(4) no answer ... the officers open the door.
(5) if the person refuses ... they arrest the person for interference with a lawful search and enter the premises to execute the warrant. [If the person uses any force to resist the arrest then additional charges of assault on a police officer will be added to the resisting search charge. If the person brandishes a deadly weapon and/or assaults the officers with a deadly weapon they have the RIGHT to defend themselves with deadly force.]

He gets a lawyer when he gets to jail or his family gets one while an autopsy is being performed by the medical examiner.

If one critically examines "resisting arrest" statutes and the case law explaining them ... a later conclusion that the arrest was "unlawful" doesn't provide the citizen with a defense to assault on the police officer. One litigates the validity of the arrest in court not on the street.

exactly right.
The_Waco_Kid is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 03:29 AM   #21
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Michael Brown was legitimately shot by the officer he was assaulting and from whom he was attempting to take a deadly weapon. The DEAD clown in this thread did what Brown didn't do: pulled his own weapon on the officers.

2nd amendment "rights" don't help dead people, and 2nd amendment rights DO NOT AUTHORIZE the use of deadly force against police officers. Just like 1st amendment rights DO NOT AUTHORIZE people to enter other people's property shouting obscenities, banging on doors, vandalizing property, and/or breaking doors .... or any other property.

Regardless of what Maxine Waters (or HillariousNoMore) says!

But it takes more than a kindergarten mentality to figure that out: Maxine and HillariousNoMore haven't even been promoted to kindergarten. Just hide and watch the next two years!
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 01:29 PM   #22
garhkal
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 21, 2010
Location: reynoldsburg, ohio
Posts: 3,271
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
With a court order to enter the premises and take possession of the items stated in the court order the citizen HAS NO RIGHT TO AN ATTORNEY PRIOR TO THE EXECUTION OF THE WARRANT. That's TV BS.

SO you are saying a court order can be gotten against me, to search and seize stuff, ALL without me even KNOWING about it, let alone being able to defend myself against it.
Guess due process rights, just got flushed down the crapper then.
garhkal is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 02:33 PM   #23
iffy
Account Frozen
 
Join Date: Nov 4, 2018
Location: any where I want
Posts: 28
Default

5 WORDS!!!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTdO-w3xnpw
iffy is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 02:46 PM   #24
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
SO you are saying a court order can be gotten against me, to search and seize stuff, ALL without me even KNOWING about it, let alone being able to defend myself against it.
Guess due process rights, just got flushed down the crapper then.
Yes, and No.

I've never heard of anyone being given "Pre-notice" of the execution of a search warrant, and there is no legal basis for it. There are two legitimate reasons: (1) "officer safety," which the SCOTUS has recognized for decades and (2) to prevent destroying and/or secreting of the items sought to be obtained by the warrant.

Your "due process" at that point is LE/Prosecutors applying to a Judge who reviews the probably cause to determine if there is sufficient to justify the intrusion.

Since you are a "strict constructionist" you can refer to the 4th amendment and see if it says a "condition" PRIOR TO THE SEARCH is for you to have an attorney present: It doesn't say that.

You are not even entitled to be present during the search: with or without an attorney. You are "entitled" to a copy of the warrant and the inventory of property seized, which will be part of the "return" to the Judge who issued the court order (aka search warrant).
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 11-11-2018, 02:50 PM   #25
LexusLover
Valued Poster
 
LexusLover's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 16, 2010
Location: Texas
Posts: 51,038
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iffy View Post
I suspect the yo-yo about whom this thread was posted didn't even have cold hands when they took his firearm. At least when he died he thought he was exercising his "constitutional right" to "bear arms" and so he must have been happy and content in those last fleeting seconds of his uninformed or ill-informed life.

Like George Carlin would have said: Let him eat marbles.
LexusLover is offline   Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 12:59 AM   #26
garhkal
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 21, 2010
Location: reynoldsburg, ohio
Posts: 3,271
Encounters: 7
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
I've never heard of anyone being given "Pre-notice" of the execution of a search warrant, and there is no legal basis for it. There are two legitimate reasons: (1) "officer safety," which the SCOTUS has recognized for decades and (2) to prevent destroying and/or secreting of the items sought to be obtained by the warrant.

I am not talking about a search warrant, i am talking about a "red-order/protection order..


Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
Your "due process" at that point is LE/Prosecutors applying to a Judge who reviews the probably cause to determine if there is sufficient to justify the intrusion.

Which makes no sense to me. How is MY 'due process' being respected, if others talk about me without my knowledge, and decide on Z?




Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
You are not even entitled to be present during the search: with or without an attorney. You are "entitled" to a copy of the warrant and the inventory of property seized, which will be part of the "return" to the Judge who issued the court order (aka search warrant).

Which to me is even more farked up. I can in effect, have my stuff seized/searched, without being told soemone's doing so, OR being witness to it. And it sounds like i have no choice in the bloody matter..
garhkal is offline   Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 05:48 AM   #27
Jackie S
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 31, 2010
Location: Houston
Posts: 15,054
Encounters: 15
Default

The whole point is.......the time to litigate a legal matter IS Not when the police are in the process of serving a Warrant or are in the process of making an arrest.
Jackie S is offline   Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 07:19 AM   #28
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
SO he should have just let them confiscate all his guns?? ANd then what?
If they come, YES, the best thing to do is to let them. No one is winning that battle. Otherwise you'll be dead, and they'll have your guns anyway.
grean is offline   Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 07:32 AM   #29
grean
Valued Poster
 
Join Date: Jun 10, 2012
Location: Plano
Posts: 3,914
Encounters: 19
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by garhkal View Post
SO you are saying a court order can be gotten against me, to search and seize stuff, ALL without me even KNOWING about it, let alone being able to defend myself against it.
Guess due process rights, just got flushed down the crapper then.
TROs hearings are done ex parte from my understanding.

So, no you do not get a chance to prove your competency prior to them knocking on your door to take your stuff.


My thing is that it's a bs gun grab. If they are really concerned about a person hurting themselves or others, just taking his guns away really doesn't resolve that issue.

There is a process in place to make someone,who is believed to be a danger, be examined and if needed held for observation.

The Red Flag Orders side step that process to just get the guns. They leave the person who they think is dangerous to his own devices. My guess is that if he was going to hurt someone, taking his guns wouldn't stop him.
grean is offline   Quote
Old 11-12-2018, 08:09 AM   #30
I B Hankering
Valued Poster
 
I B Hankering's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 3, 2010
Location: South of Chicago
Posts: 31,214
Encounters: 9
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LexusLover View Post
I suspect the yo-yo about whom this thread was posted didn't even have cold hands when they took his firearm. At least when he died he thought he was exercising his "constitutional right" to "bear arms" and so he must have been happy and content in those last fleeting seconds of his uninformed or ill-informed life.

Like George Carlin would have said: Let him eat marbles.
I would suspect the man was considering his rights as guaranteed by the 4th, 5th and 14th Amendments more so than the 2nd.
I B Hankering is offline   Quote
Reply

Thread Tools


AMPReviews.net
Find Ladies
Hot Women

Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright © 2009 - 2016, ECCIE Worldwide, All Rights Reserved