Police enter and search a woman's home without a warrant:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Terrif … 4-260.html
This is the sort of thing we need to be angry about - not health insurance mandates.
I watched the video and they said they had reason to suspect that the man they had a warrant for was in that home. That is all they need if they did indeed have an arrest warrant for someone. They never showed her the arrest warrant.
OK So I watched the video, looks fishy to me. I would ask why did she go to the door with a camera running and why was she so defensive to begin with. Most likely she had something or someone to hide.
From what I've been seeing, the bail bondsman has a right to enter a home like that if he has a reason to believe the fugitive is in the home (ie, saw the fugitive enter the house). The Sheriffs don't have the same right, they require a search warrant. Also the Sherrifs should have given their names and badge numbers on request.
I look at it like this: if the police were ok to do what they did in this situation, then they can basically enter my home at any time for any reason - all they have to do is say that they had reasonable evidence to believe that there is a fugitive inside - whether that fugitive is inside or not.
You are posting Alex Jones stuff. Good Job!
Either way America is not a police state. Try Saudi Arabia, China (see, for example, the whole Google story), Iran before the Islamic Revolution (and since of course), Saddam's Iraq, and many other of America's historical allies.
The point is taken however. People should be ever vigilant in regard to the abuse of power by the powers that be, but America is not a police state. If it was, Hubpages would not exist.
Best to you, all the same.
Agreed - we're not there yet. But this sort of thing must be confronted and condemned.
It just makes me queezy when people bandy words around like police state. Countries like Canada, the US and Britain have never had to experience such things, thank God, at least in living memory (not true if you are Black and of a certain age in the US, mind you).
This is not true for most other Western nations, most of whom were occupied either by the Nazis, the Soviets, or both, or who had home-grown police states of their own, within the last 100 years.
In short, Anglo-Saxon nations don't know they're born.
Hm. In one way I agree with you. The majority of Americans have no idea what a police state truly is. The fact that I'm sitting here writing this with no fear of consequences is proof of that.
But the sort of abuse of power that is in that video goes on every day, usually to people who don't video tape it or have the resources to fight it in court.
I wonder if there's a class of people in America who are indeed living in a police state?
Yes, I think this last statement is a good one. Often things come down to that bizarre word "parsing" -- something that almost never gets done, but would really help if people did more of it.
In other words, if people parsed out terms like "police state" so that you could end up with statements like "A police state within a relatively free and robust nation, that tends only to apply to certain groups" then this would seem more accurate, and thus more enlightening.
For example (and this has been raising my hackles of late), let's parse out the whole Ann Coulter thing. A bunch of twenty-two year olds were capable of shutting down a speech in Ottawa by causing a security situation, ie here I am "parsing out" the details of what actually happened. For this to be extrapolated to "America has more free speech than Canada" is ABSURD. But that's another topic.
The point is that you cannot generalize based on isolated incidents... however you CAN discuss THOSE incidents per se.
So here is my question why cant our government do something about the legal system. I should not cost an arm and a leg to defend our rights as private citizens. They keep focusing on health care and the whole legal system is out of control.
Health care is part of your rights. The right not to get screwed over by large corporations who see you as a statistic and see profit as the only consideration.
I do understand the need for health care reform but why cant they reform the legal system as well? So many poor and middle class families just do not have the means to fight back within the legal system because the cost is so overwhelming.
LOL I have no idea where to begin with the legal system. Maybe legalize marijuana to cut down on the overload but beyond that I have no ideas. Law is really just about who has the best lawyers and the most money.
"So here is my question why cant our government do something about the legal system."
Because obama decided that his 'Great Leap Forward' health care nonsense was more important than anything else.
" The majority of Americans have no idea what a police state truly is. "
But YOU do?
Ever heard of "education." It is possible to go research terms like "police state." It is not a badge of honour to have gone and done some research. You just go do it. Some things are police states some are not. Sure, maybe the edges are fuzzy. But still, there is a general definition. What's the problem here? The assertion was a reasonable one: if you are poor and without status, there is more likelihood of being treated with less respect than if you have high status. And for some, I suspect, the experience of living in America (or Canada, or Britain) is (sometimes) like living in a police state...
..And then there are ACTUAL police states, Saddam's Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Taliban-controlled Afghanistan, Pinochet's Chile, Galtieri's Argentina, and so on.
http://www.kget.com/mostpopular/story/S … 6XCLg.cspx
There's more. Always is.
The claim of "I am a Sovereign woman and a Freeman" says alot."
There is a movement growing rapidly in the U.S to separate the Govt. created strawman and the actual individual.
The point is true. However Obama has to start somewhere. Life and health is more important than anything else. Now with this bill no insurance company can say you cannot be treated no matter when you got any illness of any kind, even deadly !
Well later on, they can move to the next thing to be set right ...
All the same, I am inclined to say that, if you thought health care was a mangled jungle, I cannot imagine trying to tackle the legal systems' problems, which are surely that much more complex... Still, I could be overly pessimistic.
" Life and health is more important than anything else."
A reasonable approach could have addressed both.
Here's an incident in which several FBI agents shot a black Muslim Imam suspected of dealing in stolen goods and alleged terrorist activities 21 times. It's been creating a bit of an uproar in Detroit for the past several months. The FBI has not released its report on the incident. The FBI agents apparently opened fire after the suspect shot and wounded the dog that preceded them in the raid. Some wonder whether it was necessary for the FBI agents to shoot the individual 21 times including several shots to the genitals.
Imam Luqman Ameen Abdullah, 53, was the target of a two year investigation by federal agents who said he was a radical Sunni leader preaching the overthrow of the government from his small mosque. He was shot 21 times during the raid. FBI agents at the time said he refused to surrender and fired a gun before agents fired back. His supporters contend it was an act of police brutality aimed at a black Muslim.
True story from 1994... man is sitting on his porch on a glider and watching a football game. Man falls asleep from drinking. Police show up to make sure man is alright to which he replies "yes I fell aslep watching the game" Police ask for ID . Man replies It's inside let me get it" Police say no necessary, beat the man to near death and jail him.
Yes this is a true story and only shows cops can actually be nothing more than badged bullies!!! and do I know it is true? I was the Man!
I'm convinced that the rate of brutality and criminality is higher among the people in law enforcement than in the general population.
I'm convinced you are wrong.....and an ingrate
You're right, I'm not grateful for police abuse I've suffered personally and for even worse abuse suffered by others at the hands of police, prosecutors and judges. I agree with the old Spanish saying "The law is a mad dog that bites only the poor." And "Law in its majesty allows rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges and beg for food."
Here's a more serious problem, the subject of the top editorial in this morning's NY Times
April 3, 2010
For more than 20 years, it was settled law, born of bitter experience, that the government may not eavesdrop on people in the United States without a warrant.
Court Ruling on Wiretapping Until, that is, after the 9/11 attacks, when President George W. Bush ordered the National Security Agency to ignore the law. When The Times disclosed the spying in late 2005, Mr. Bush argued that the attacks changed everything: Due process and privacy were luxuries the country could no longer afford. Far too many members of Congress bought this argument. Others, afraid of being painted as soft on terror, refused to push back. In 2008, at the White House’s insistence, they expanded the government’s ability to eavesdrop without warrants.
Even that was not enough for the Bush administration, which insisted that targets of the earlier, illegal spying could not sue the government because what happened was “too secret” even to be discussed in court. The Obama administration has embraced the secrecy argument and has used it to block several cases.
Fortunately, it has not completely succeeded.
The chief judge of the Federal District Court in San Francisco, Vaughn Walker, ruled last week that the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act was the law of the land for Mr. Bush and that when the government failed to get a warrant to wiretap, it broke the law. He also said that the government could not evade accountability with absurdly broad claims of state secrets.
This ruling does not end warrantless wiretapping. The particular program The Times uncovered has been suspended; there are still others, however, and the 2008 FISA amendments permit warrantless spying.
Judge Walker’s ruling establishes that state secrecy claims do not trump the requirements of FISA. The next big case, filed by several human rights groups and still being appealed, challenges the 2008 amendments.
Judge Walker’s ruling also provides a chilling account of the relentless efforts by the Bush administration and then the Obama administration to kill the civil lawsuit filed by an Islamic charity in Oregon called Al Haramain. The group was subjected to warrantless surveillance and then declared a sponsor of terrorism in 2004.
When the lawsuit was filed in 2006, the government argued that the charity and two lawyers who worked with it could not sue unless they knew the charity was being wiretapped. They could not know that because the wiretapping was secret. If they somehow found out, they could not prove the wiretapping was warrantless, because that was also a secret.
The plaintiffs first tried to build their case on a classified document they were given by mistake. When that document was suppressed, they showed from public records that they were subject to illegal surveillance. The government said that those should be suppressed, too. The lawyers argued that the only basis for a suit would be if the government admitted it had no warrant. And it would not admit that, because that was a secret.
A clearly exasperated Judge Walker said all the government had to do was produce a FISA warrant. It refused. Because any warrant was, well, you get it.
That reminded us of the movie “Animal House” and the college dean who puts a fraternity on “double-secret probation.” It doesn’t know the rules, or even that it is on probation, so it can never get out of it. Judge Walker more politely called the government’s defense “argumentative acrobatics” that took a “flying leap” and missed “by a wide margin.”
The new suit over the FISA amendments points out that the Supreme Court recognized more than 40 years ago that there are few threats to liberty “greater than that posed by the use of eavesdropping devices.” In fact, FISA was originally passed because of spying conducted on anti-Vietnam War protesters and civil rights activists.
Senator Obama promised repeatedly in the 2008 campaign to reverse Mr. Bush’s many abuses of power. This was one of them. President Obama should read this court ruling with chagrin and eliminate warrantless spying. It is also far past time to stop hiding behind spurious, often ludicrous, claims of national security.
by larakern4 years ago
I was just informed that in order to issue a warrant the person needs an address. What if a hobo killed a bunch of babies and didn't get arrested on the scene? I was told by an official at the court house they would...
by ahorseback3 weeks ago
Can the argument be made for learning experiences or is the left intellectually advanced beyond that ?
by Ron Montgomery7 years ago
Our state has run out of humans to hate
by James Smith4 years ago
Police state definition: a police state is one in which the government exercises rigid and repressive controls over the social, economic, and political life of the population.A breakdown of incursions into civil...
by sannyasinman7 years ago
What kind of America do you want to live in? Do you want it to remain the "Land of the Free", or do you want it to be a police state where people can be thrown in jail indefinitely without a trial, at the...
by Sooner284 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/10/09/a … nd-sexism/
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.