RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/553863-justices-decline-to-give-police-more-power-to-search-homes-without Great ruling....9 to 0....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 Breonna Taylor would still be alive had they done this sooner... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Youngcoach123 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 hour ago, JETT said: Breonna Taylor would still be alive had they done this sooner... I can’t even with you sometimes. Read the article and try to understand what it’s talking about before aimlessly responding with nonsense that’s off topic. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 There goes the gun grab out the window. Had that been included we all know it would have been a split vote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 41 minutes ago, Youngcoach123 said: I can’t even with you sometimes. Read the article and try to understand what it’s talking about before aimlessly responding with nonsense that’s off topic. I could care less what the article says, it's the same difference... no knock warrants or search warrants... private property is private property... or do you disagree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 16 minutes ago, JETT said: I could care less what the article says, it's the same difference... no knock warrants or search warrants... The difference being is they had a warrant and this ruling was not on a case challenging no knock warrants so it wouldn't have affected what happened to her at all....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 4th Amendment: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, RETIREDFAN1 said: The difference being is they had a warrant and this ruling was not on a case challenging no knock warrants so it wouldn't have affected what happened to her at all....... Private property is private property, I don't care what anyone says... no 1 should be allowed to search someone's place whether they have a piece of paper or not saying it's ok... 1 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 minute ago, JETT said: Private property is private property, I don't care what anyone says... no 1 should be allowed to search someone's place whether they have a piece of paper or not saying it's ok... Maybe. But private property can be taken from you, legally. Try missing a property tax payment and see what happens. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 minute ago, JETT said: Private property is private property, I don't care what anyone says... no 1 should be allowed to search someone's place whether they have a piece of paper or not saying it's ok... The Constitution says otherwise.... Preamble Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Amendment I Amendment II Amendment III Amendment IV Amendment V Amendment VI Amendment VII Amendment VIII Amendment IX Amendment X Amendment XI Amendment XII Amendment XIII Amendment XIV Amendment XV Amendment XVI Amendment XVII Amendment XVIII Amendment XIX Amendment XX Amendment XXI Amendment XXII Amendment XXIII Amendment XXIV Amendment XXV Amendment XXVI Amendment XXVII The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 Just now, RETIREDFAN1 said: The Constitution says otherwise.... Preamble Article I Article II Article III Article IV Article V Article VI Article VII Amendment I Amendment II Amendment III Amendment IV Amendment V Amendment VI Amendment VII Amendment VIII Amendment IX Amendment X Amendment XI Amendment XII Amendment XIII Amendment XIV Amendment XV Amendment XVI Amendment XVII Amendment XVIII Amendment XIX Amendment XX Amendment XXI Amendment XXII Amendment XXIII Amendment XXIV Amendment XXV Amendment XXVI Amendment XXVII The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. So this ruling that was 9-0 should be thrown out cause the constitution says otherwise right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 Just now, JETT said: So this ruling that was 9-0 should be thrown out cause the constitution says otherwise right? Nope....if you READ the article the ruling says NO warrantless searches at all.......just like the Fourth Amendment clearly states....... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 And if you would have paid attention in government class you'd know that rulings from SCOTUS are final...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 2 minutes ago, JETT said: So this ruling that was 9-0 should be thrown out cause the constitution says otherwise right? I think Retiredfan is right. It prohibits warrantless searches of your residence. What I would like to have seen them done is extend that to someone's vehicle, too. The Constitution still exists in your car. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 minute ago, RETIREDFAN1 said: Nope....if you READ the article the ruling says NO warrantless searches at all.......just like the Fourth Amendment clearly states....... You ought to know by now I aint reading 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 Just now, JETT said: You ought to know by now I aint reading It shows when you post crap like that.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 minute ago, RETIREDFAN1 said: And if you would have paid attention in government class you'd know that rulings from SCOTUS are final...... I graduated long ago, and honestly I make a good living without knowing all that stuff... But I do like the part about SCOTUS, it spells irony all over it about this last election Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 minute ago, RETIREDFAN1 said: It shows when you post #### like that.... As long as I don't look dumb as lion I'm cool, besides who cares what yall think 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoyzNdaHood Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 3 minutes ago, Monte1076 said: I think Retiredfan is right. It prohibits warrantless searches of your residence. What I would like to have seen them done is extend that to someone's vehicle, too. The Constitution still exists in your car. Don't get him to excited, he gets all giddy inside when he's right 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 6 minutes ago, JETT said: As long as I don't look dumb as lion I'm cool, besides who cares what yall think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 10 minutes ago, Monte1076 said: I think Retiredfan is right. It prohibits warrantless searches of your residence. What I would like to have seen them done is extend that to someone's vehicle, too. The Constitution still exists in your car. Amen...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 Just now, RETIREDFAN1 said: Amen...... It's also why I don't like "no refusal" weekends. They are blatant violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RETIREDFAN1 Posted May 17, 2021 Author Share Posted May 17, 2021 1 minute ago, Monte1076 said: It's also why I don't like "no refusal" weekends. They are blatant violations of the 4th and 5th Amendments. And when someone finally sues in federal court they will end too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Monte1076 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 Just now, RETIREDFAN1 said: And when someone finally sues in federal court they will end too.... I'm a little surprised someone hasn't yet. I wrote my state Senator about it, and got no response. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveTV1 Posted May 17, 2021 Share Posted May 17, 2021 34 minutes ago, JETT said: Private property is private property, I don't care what anyone says... no 1 should be allowed to search someone's place whether they have a piece of paper or not saying it's ok... I don't believe in no knock warrants. They should announce their presence before entering, however it is not illegal search and seizure if they have a warrant signed off by a judge. Generally it takes a lot of evidence to have a judge sign off on a warrant. That is the check and balance of warrants. A no knock to inform people that police are about to enter a home leads to too many tragedies. I also don't like search warrants being used in the middle of the night or the early morning. People are sleeping to get ready for work. They wake up groggy from Mr. Sandman and may not even be aware the police are barging in which could lead to them shooting at the police. I think the earliest they should be done is around 7 am. Stake out the house, and once lights come or a door opens then make your presence known and act according to the dangers that might be possible return gunfire, hostages, etc. . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now