The Democrat Thread

[BigSqwert]

So...there is a plane with one of those giant banners orbiting Knoxville right now. I was surprised, because the university is out, so half the buildings here are empty.

 

Looked up...and what is it advertising for? Why, the fact that May 21 is Judgement day.

 

Seriously? It has to cost what, a few thousand dollars to print up a 20 yard long banner, rent a plane, pay the runway fees and registration, then fly it behind the plane orbiting around a small city for an hour. right?

 

Now I'm not a religious person, but from what I do know of Christianity, if you genuinely thought the world was going to end tomorrow, and you wanted to do something with money beforehand...would you blow it on a stupid plane? Or maybe, would you do something like go to the churches and homeless shelters in the area and decide that you were going to make sure that no child in Knox county went to sleep hungry tonight?

 

Which of those would Jesus do?

How does flying a plane save souls?

[Soxbadger]

Well the whole ruling is a joke because they actually didnt rule on the most important fact:

 

"Was merely having the belief evidence was being destroyed, exigent circumstances?"

 

The KY court (haha) let Supreme Court off the hook because they assumed for the sake of argument, that there were exigent circumstances (Most likely because they never thought the Supreme Court would over turn them), when it seems that the Supreme Court of Kentucky wasnt sure that there were exigent circumstances, they just felt even if their were that it didnt matter.

 

This is important, because while I agree with the Supreme Court that merely knocking on a door is not enough to create exigent circumstances, I am not so sure that exigent circumstances existed.

 

Basically had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, there is an argument that if a police officer knocked on a door then heard a gun shot, that he could not enter because the knock created the exigent circumstances and therefore it was in violation of the 4th.

 

Im pretty pro-Defendant but this was just sloppy on all parts.

[Balta1701]

How does flying a plane save souls?

I haven't a clue.

[StrangeSox]

Minimally easier in a unique, factual circumstance.

 

No, it restructures the whole "exception to the exception" test of exigent circumstances. The SCOTUS would not take a case if it only applied to this narrow situation. Apparently, a lot of states have taken various approaches to this issue, so the SCOTUS had a good opportunity to clarify and set down ground rules.

 

The whole idea is that, based on your probable cause that something is going down inside, you don't have to miss the arrest by having to go get a warrant. This is common sense, real world ruling I think.

 

They weren't in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Their probable cause was the smell of pot in the hallway and "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," which was caused by them banging on the door. The dealer really is irrelevant to the ruling here.

 

[StrangeSox]

Well the whole ruling is a joke because they actually didnt rule on the most important fact:

 

"Was merely having the belief evidence was being destroyed, exigent circumstances?"

 

The KY court (haha) let Supreme Court off the hook because they assumed for the sake of argument, that there were exigent circumstances (Most likely because they never thought the Supreme Court would over turn them), when it seems that the Supreme Court of Kentucky wasnt sure that there were exigent circumstances, they just felt even if their were that it didnt matter.

 

This is important, because while I agree with the Supreme Court that merely knocking on a door is not enough to create exigent circumstances, I am not so sure that exigent circumstances existed.

 

Basically had the Supreme Court ruled the other way, there is an argument that if a police officer knocked on a door then heard a gun shot, that he could not enter because the knock created the exigent circumstances and therefore it was in violation of the 4th.

 

Im pretty pro-Defendant but this was just sloppy on all parts.

 

Interesting counter-point.

 

Yeah, maybe that's what bothering me more, the idea that police heard some people moving so now there's exigent circumstances. If police bang on a door, they're going to hear people moving.

 

edit: actually they remanded the decision if there really was exigent circumstances back to the KY court

Edited May 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[StrangeSox]

So...there is a plane with one of those giant banners orbiting Knoxville right now. I was surprised, because the university is out, so half the buildings here are empty.

 

Looked up...and what is it advertising for? Why, the fact that May 21 is Judgement day.

 

Seriously? It has to cost what, a few thousand dollars to print up a 20 yard long banner, rent a plane, pay the runway fees and registration, then fly it behind the plane orbiting around a small city for an hour. right?

 

Now I'm not a religious person, but from what I do know of Christianity, if you genuinely thought the world was going to end tomorrow, and you wanted to do something with money beforehand...would you blow it on a stupid plane? Or maybe, would you do something like go to the churches and homeless shelters in the area and decide that you were going to make sure that no child in Knox county went to sleep hungry tonight?

 

Which of those would Jesus do?

 

It's based on a bunch of bizarre numerology.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/pos...ehin-2011-05-19

 

FWIW, I think saving souls>feeding people.

 

Yeah, that's a problem underlying a lot of missionary work.

 

[Soxbadger]

Thats why the case is nonsense, it really never got to the heart of the issue, were there exigent circumstances.

 

To make things practical, if the police smell marijuana coming from your apartment/house/whatever they knock on the door and hear you flushing the toilet violently, it might be exigent circumstances.

 

Conversely they knock on your door, you answer the door, and say that they have to get a warrant, maybe its not exigent circumstances.

 

But that is for the trier of fact to decide on a case by case basis, KY''s ruling was a little lazy and I think the Supreme Court wanted to clarify.

[StrangeSox]

They only ruled that WHEN an exigent circumstance exists a warrantless search is not against the 4th amendment.

 

But there's always been an exception to that exception if the police themselves create the circumstance. The ruling outlined the test for that, which overrode several State-developed tests and ultimately makes it more difficult to suppress evidence from a warrantless search.

 

My first post was a little too hyperbolic, this wasn't some huge, drastic gutting of the 4th. Just another step in weakening it.

[StrangeSox]

Thats why the case is nonsense, it really never got to the heart of the issue, were there exigent circumstances.

 

To make things practical, if the police smell marijuana coming from your apartment/house/whatever they knock on the door and hear you flushing the toilet violently, it might be exigent circumstances.

 

Conversely they knock on your door, you answer the door, and say that they have to get a warrant, maybe its not exigent circumstances.

 

But that is for the trier of fact to decide on a case by case basis, KY''s ruling was a little lazy and I think the Supreme Court wanted to clarify.

 

 

Either the ruling or the Commonwealth brief clearly said that, had the occupants denied them entrance, it would have been within their 4th amendment rights. I've no doubt they still would have broken the door down and entered, but maybe the rulings would be different in that case.

 

edit: they also didn't hear any toilets flushing, just people moving around. Hell, one guy was still smoking on the couch. If that's the bar for exigency...

Edited May 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Balta1701]

FWIW, I think saving souls>feeding people.

Even if I accepted the moronic notion that flying a plane with a banner = saving souls...

 

If you were the person making that decision, which would be more likely to save yours?

[BigSqwert]

BTW, here's that Maher clip I was referring to the other day.

 

[Jenksismyhero]

No, it restructures the whole "exception to the exception" test of exigent circumstances. The SCOTUS would not take a case if it only applied to this narrow situation. Apparently, a lot of states have taken various approaches to this issue, so the SCOTUS had a good opportunity to clarify and set down ground rules.

 

 

 

They weren't in hot pursuit of a fleeing suspect. Their probable cause was the smell of pot in the hallway and "noises potentially consistent with the destruction of possible evidence," which was caused by them banging on the door. The dealer really is irrelevant to the ruling here.

 

The smell of pot isn't probable cause that people are using an illegal drug in the apartment? You're ignoring this key piece to the puzzle. They couldn't possibly claim that they believed "evidence" was being destroyed, and thus fit themselves into this exigent circumstance exception to warrants, if there wasn't probable cause to suspect illegal behavior.

 

Edit: and this is why the dealer is important, because that supports their contention that a known drug dealer was getting rid of evidence.

Edited May 20, 2011 by Jenksismybitch

[southsider2k5]

Even if I accepted the moronic notion that flying a plane with a banner = saving souls...

 

If you were the person making that decision, which would be more likely to save yours?

 

Neither decision does actually.

[Jenksismyhero]

But there's always been an exception to that exception if the police themselves create the circumstance. The ruling outlined the test for that, which overrode several State-developed tests and ultimately makes it more difficult to suppress evidence from a warrantless search.

 

My first post was a little too hyperbolic, this wasn't some huge, drastic gutting of the 4th. Just another step in weakening it.

 

This is probably why they decided to take the case - too many districts had different interpretations of this narrow area of 4th amendment jurisprudence. For the sake of future efficiency in these types of cases, they probably wanted to give a clear standard.

[Balta1701]

BTW, here's that Maher clip I was referring to the other day.

 

While you're at it:

 

The Colbert Report
Tags: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Political Humor & Satire Blog,Video Archive

[Soxbadger]

I wasnt using the facts of the case, I was just using random sets of facts to show that different circumstances will lead to different results.

[BigSqwert]

While you're at it:

 

LOL

[BigSqwert]

 

[bmags]

hahahahahahhahahah

[BigSqwert]

hahahahahahhahahah

These people can vote AND have children.

[StrangeSox]

The smell of pot isn't probable cause that people are using an illegal drug in the apartment? You're ignoring this key piece to the puzzle. They couldn't possibly claim that they believed "evidence" was being destroyed, and thus fit themselves into this exigent circumstance exception to warrants, if there wasn't probable cause to suspect illegal behavior.

 

Edit: and this is why the dealer is important, because that supports their contention that a known drug dealer was getting rid of evidence.

 

None of that matters since the SCOTUS wasn't ruling on whether there really were exigent circumstances, as Soxbadger points out. It's strictly about the exception to the exception tests. The test the court laid out makes it easier to justify warrantless searches in exigent circumstances, even if those circumstances are created by the police.

 

Also, at least in Indiana, you no longer have the right to resist an unlawful entry by the police. I understand that from a practicality standpoint, but from an ethical(?) one that's pretty terrible.

Edited May 20, 2011 by StrangeSox

[lostfan]

Even if I accepted the moronic notion that flying a plane with a banner = saving souls...

 

If you were the person making that decision, which would be more likely to save yours?

It's not really about your actions, it's the faith that's the key, so like 2K5 said, as far as saving your own soul that's actually kind of irrelevant.

 

Yeah, I might not go to church very often but I do know a little more than I pretend to

[lostfan]

That Onion post is hilarious, and kind of depressing at the same time. That is one of the biggest reasons people are so easily convinced of the opposite of reality and facts are irrelevant... the most extreme case of confirmation bias

[Balta1701]

It's not really about your actions, it's the faith that's the key, so like 2K5 said, as far as saving your own soul that's actually kind of irrelevant.

 

Yeah, I might not go to church very often but I do know a little more than I pretend to

That might be the modern conservative interpretation, but theres that whole "rich man/eye of the needle" thing here.

 

Go sell your possessions and five to the poor and you will have riches in heaven!

[lostfan]

That might be the modern conservative interpretation, but theres that whole "rich man/eye of the needle" thing here.

 

Go sell your possessions and five to the poor and you will have riches in heaven!

Yeah... this is one of the reasons I don't go to church. Pray a lot and Jesus will give you money and nice things (this belief is everywhere I go). That is a crock of s***. Anyone who expects THAT out of their faith is doing it wrong.

Edited May 21, 2011 by lostfan