First the 2nd, now the 4th

[bottlerocket]

Bullshit.

http://thepeoplecomefirst.com/4th-amendment-we-dont-need-no-stinkin-4th-amendment.html#

March 12, 2013
Police may solemnly swear to support the Constitution of the United States, but this is increasingly a meaningless formality for many of them.

For instance, a couple cops in Dallas County, Texas, arrived at Jon Locke’s home to serve an arrest warrant on his brother, who wasn’t there. Mr. Locke wasn’t home either, but instead of coming back at a later time when somebody was home and asking about the brother, the police took it upon themselves to violate the Fourth Amendment and rifle through the homeowner’s possessions. They went so far as to enter his home without a search warrant

[Sean88gt]

Bullshit.

http://thepeoplecomefirst.com/4th-am...mendment.html#

This is going to go great. Police are becoming Gulag, but against a society that is far more capable of violence than the beat down soviets.

[Baba Ganoush]

Read about this in the paper yesterday. It was in Garland, and they caught it on security camera. The cops turned one of the cameras and broke the mount before they entered the back door.

[Craizie]

They should be hung.

[David]

US Supreme Court is hearing a case that is essentially whether or not your choice to remain silent before you're read your constitutional rights is an admission of guilt.

[Sean88gt]

US Supreme Court is hearing a case that is essentially whether or not your choice to remain silent before you're read your constitutional rights is an admission of guilt.

You've got to be shitting me.....what's the case number?

[Baba Ganoush]

US Supreme Court is hearing a case that is essentially whether or not your choice to remain silent before you're read your constitutional rights is an admission of guilt.

I don't believe this.

[Crownline79]

US Supreme Court is hearing a case that is essentially whether or not your choice to remain silent before you're read your constitutional rights is an admission of guilt.

I thought non custodial interrogation was admissable. And once in custody, anything beyond that prior to rights being read was not admissible?

[David]

You've got to be shitting me.....what's the case number?

Don't know the number, but its salinas v. Texas.

[DallasSleeper]

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/us...ases.html?_r=0
Salinas v. Texas, No. 12-246, addresses a major open question in the court’s Fifth Amendment jurisprudence: May the failure to answer a police officer’s questions before an arrest be used against a defendant at trial?

The Supreme Court has said the amendment’s protection against self-incrimination applies after arrest and at trial. But it has never decided, in the words of a 1980 decision, “whether or under what circumstances pre-arrest silence” in the face of questioning by law enforcement personnel is entitled to protection.

The case arose from the 1992 murders of two brothers, Juan and Hector Garza, in Houston. Among the evidence the police found were discarded shotgun shells.

They questioned Genovevo Salinas, who was said to have attended a party at the Garzas’ apartment. Mr. Salinas answered questions for almost an hour but would not say if a shotgun the police had taken from his home would match the recovered shells.

The question about the shells was the only one Mr. Salinas refused to answer. Instead, a police officer later testified, he “looked down at the floor, shuffled his feet, bit his bottom lip, clinched his hands in his lap, began to tighten up.”

Mr. Salinas was charged with murder after a friend told the police that Mr. Salinas had confessed. The jury deadlocked at his first trial. At a retrial, prosecutors again relied on testimony about the confession and ballistics evidence. They now also emphasized Mr. Salinas’s silence about the shells.

“An innocent person,” one prosecutor told the jury, “is going to say: ‘What are you talking about? I didn’t do that. I wasn’t there.’ He didn’t respond that way. He didn’t say, ‘No, it’s not going to match up.’ ”

Mr. Salinas was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In urging the justices not to hear the case, prosecutors in Texas said Mr. Salinas had effectively answered the question about the shells through his conduct. In any event, they said, the Fifth Amendment does not apply when “there is no official compulsion to speak.”

[Forever_frost]

It absolutely applies. You have the right not to answer any question you want. Fuck that.

Edit: Just watched the video. Those officers should be arrested for trespassing and anything else you can stick on them. Destruction of private property, illegal search and I'd want my cameras replaced because fuckhead broke one of them. I agree with him though, I'd be moving and pushing a lawsuit civilly and criminally

[Moose242]

And people in America are just going to sit back and take it. Nobody will do a damn thing about it.

[racrguy]

And people in America are just going to sit back and take it. Nobody will do a damn thing about it.

I know the answer to this one!

Fuck you, pussy! Don't you have some more of daddies money to spend?

[mightyp]

And people in America are just going to sit back and take it. Nobody will do a damn thing about it.

some will move outta the country...that'll show em

[Moose242]

some will move outta the country...that'll show em

Not feeding the beast > complaining on an internet message board.