Florida Police obtain warrant to search "all persons" in apartment complex

[rambone]

And although the founding fathers were pretty smart, they weren't perfect. They fought and died for a country where slavery was just fine, blacks were 2/3 of a person, and women didn't have the right to vote. I happen to think, despite some areas where improvement needs to be made, we've made some changes in our government and body of laws that are an improvement over the original ideas of the founding fathers.

If the proposed U.S. Constitution immediately banned slavery -- Then not all 13 colonies would have agreed to join the United States! The U.S.A. would not exist as we know it! The founders left slavery as a state issue in order to phase it out gradually while retaining the solidarity of the union. The majority of the founders were opposed to slavery.

The 3/5ths Compromise actually was an Anti-Slavery provision because it weakened the power of the South.

I've seen you go on your hateful rants against the founders a few times now. You sound like you learned about the constitution from this guy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPg9MdN9Gio]YouTube - FEMA Says Founding Fathers Are Terrorists[/ame]

What you want is police that only enforce YOUR interpretation of the constitution. This ignores the basic process set up by the founding fathers, the checks and balances of the 3 branches. I prefer that the system be allowed to work. This of course assumes that the police aren't shooting people on sight without cause or doing some other unconscionable act against citizens. Perhaps the only difference between you and I are how we define "tyranny." I don't use the term lightly. Some call the seatbelt law "tyranny." YMMV.

I take all blatant breaches of the Bill of Rights to be tyranny. I'm sorry you don't feel the same way. So I take it you won't be joining Oathkeepers then?

 

[Lobo]

.

 

[INGunGuy]

How dare you suggest that a right afforded to every citizen by the 19th Amendment be stripped away from the people! Tyranny I say, tyranny!!

INGunGuy will be along shortly to execute you. Do you prefer electric chair or firing squad?

You are really starting to show your ignorance. If 3/4ths of the states were to ratify a Constitutional Amendment repealing the 19th then so be it. It went thru the Constitutionally required vote and was passed. That is FINE. Follow the Constitution, and not some bastardized version.

INGunGuy

 

[VUPDblue]

Two bans have been issued. The staff will not tolerate any further examples of insults/attacks/disrespect nor will we tolerate any creative or partial spelling to circumvent the language filter. If you cannot conduct yourself like an adult on this site they you can leave...voluntarily or involuntarily. Your choice.

No more warnings will be issued in this thread. The very next person who violates any of the above rules will be removed from this site permanently. You have been warned.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

And if you can tell the difference between tarring and feathering, and summary execution without due process, then no, you are not a McVeigh worshipper. The only question is, are you smart enough to know the difference? Probably not, since you have to ask.

Do you know the difference between a bullet in the head and tarring and feathering? I'll give you a hint, the bullet is much quicker and less painful. Tar and feathers almost always resulted in death, a long drawn out and painful one. The tar caused second and third degree burns which became infected without modern antibiotics. And people today ***** about cruel and unusual punishment.

(BTW, I'm in agreement that this sounds unconstitutional, and will probably not survive scrutiny upon appeal. Judges do some stupid things sometimes)

Who were the ones who asked for the warrant? Yes I expect for officers to use their judgement before applying for a warrant. The officers and the judge that signed off on it were both equally at fault.

A
You don't know dick about, the Constitution.

See my answer below. I think you may need to do a bit more reading.

How dare you suggest that a right afforded to every citizen by the 19th Amendment be stripped away from the people! Tyranny I say, tyranny!!

Nope the 19th said they cannot discriminate voting privileges based on sex. The states can still require you to be a landowner to vote, or to be straight, or be 65 or older.

No state will do so because of section 2 of the 14th amendment though.

No more warnings will be issued in this thread. The very next person who violates any of the above rules will be removed from this site permanently. You have been warned.

I hope I didn't push it too much on that, but what was stated was a 24-48 hr ban, unless there are repeated violations.

 

[VUPDblue]

The fact that a warning has been given in here is enough to warrant a permanent removal if the rules and warnings are not heeded. Two folks got 48 hour time-outs. Folks who continue on with the insults and disrespect will NOT be so lucky.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

Two bans have been issued. The staff will not tolerate any further examples of insults/attacks/disrespect nor will we tolerate any creative or partial spelling to circumvent the language filter. If you cannot conduct yourself like an adult on this site they you can leave...voluntarily or involuntarily. Your choice.

VUPDblue, you can check my post history, I'm not a mod basher. But this is what was brought up in the concern thread. It was posted that when someone got a ban that the mod would post the reason for it. What you just posted is kinda vague. Which post was the final straw? Which rule was broken? I'm not disagreeing with the bannings, but according to the new rules, you are supposed to list the exact reason.

 

[Timjoebillybob]

The fact that a warning has been given in here is enough to warrant a permanent removal if the rules and warnings are not heeded. Two folks got 48 hour time-outs. Folks who continue on with the insults and disrespect will NOT be so lucky.

Okay then, that I under stand. Its just what you posted seemed to say the the 2 were perma banned

 

[rambone]

Back on subject, is there anybody here who would refuse to execute this warrant?

If the progressives keep incrementally pushing the boundaries as to what we tolerate as "constitutional," then the people we trust with our liberties will be conditioned to keep violating them and making excuses for it. Where is your line in the sand? How unconstitutional is "too unconstitutional"? How much is too much?

"Just followin orders" is the excuse of cowards.

 

[38special]

I hope this is shut down quickly.

I just bought a condo and I'd hate to think they'll search my home because someone in my general area is breaking the law. How absurd?!

 

[Timjoebillybob]

If the progressives keep incrementally pushing the boundaries as to what we tolerate as "constitutional," then the people we trust with our liberties will be conditioned to keep violating them and making excuses for it.

Where is your line in the sand? How unconstitutional is "too unconstitutional"? How much is too much?

Actually most progressives aka liberals I know are as much up in arms about things like this as you. Liberals stand for quite a few freedoms, although the 2nd isn't usually one of them. Take out guns and taxes/entitlement programs most progressives/liberals would be libertarians, we just need to work on them a bit.

They actually are more up in arms than most conservatives I know about this kinda crap. Post this thread on a liberal/progressive forum and see what kind of responses you get. I would almost guarantee that it will be more in line with your view.

Look at the recent patriot act vote who voted for what?

 

[IncendiaryGunner]

So, if I was walking through that apartment complex at the time they decided to search everyone, I would have been searched?

Why? Because my geographic location merits "reasonable" suspicion?

I try to play devils advocate on many issues, with the hope that I may at least figure out why others would see it in a different light... Yet I fail to see how anyone can find this type of situation constitutional.

In general, criminals do not fall into the category of genius master minds. The ends justifying the means is a bit overreaching of a philosophy to apply to day to day law enforcement.

 

[Love the 1911]

More than a dozen officers and the city's SWAT team went to the area. It sounds like it may have been more effective to bring in 4-8 undercover officers to place in/around the buildings and wait until illegal activity was OBSERVED and arrest the individual that committed whatever crime they were looking for. I see 4 arrests but I wonder how many of those were for very minor possession charges. To detain everyone is absolutely wrong, no question about it.

On top of that, if there's a problem with safety around the complex, there are civil remedies that the city can take against the owner of the complex that includes large fines and eventually condemning and destroying the place.

 

[Fargo]

More than a dozen officers and the city's SWAT team went to the area. It sounds like it may have been more effective to bring in 4-8 undercover officers to place in/around the buildings and wait until illegal activity was OBSERVED and arrest the individual that committed whatever crime they were looking for. I see 4 arrests but I wonder how many of those were for very minor possession charges. To detain everyone is absolutely wrong, no question about it.

On top of that, if there's a problem with safety around the complex, there are civil remedies that the city can take against the owner of the complex that includes large fines and eventually condemning and destroying the place.

That was my thought too. Why not run a couple of CI's or undercovers through with K9's on hand. If the pushers want to run and the cops are having trouble keeping up, let officer Chompy have his way. After a couple get that treatment, word will likely get out that running has its risks.

Instead, it looks to me like the cops felt the need to get "creative". They probably shopped this warrant to a judge they knew wouldn't read it or really didn't care. Unfortunately, they don't appear to be familiar with the law of unintended consequences. All I see coming out of this is a bunch of personal and citywide liability, a bunch of dismissed cases, and new caselaw which is not at all favorable to law enforcement. Heck, I wouldn't be surprised to see the feds get involved as I'm guessing the area of magical probable cause encompassed a primarily minority housing complex.

Joe

 

[INGunGuy]

I would like to say that I am sorry for any personal attacks that I levied on this particular issue and forum. Normally I dont go for personal attacks, but I did feel as though I was being personally attacked by being likened to McVey or the Tucson shooter.

Glad I am back!

INGunGuy